heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock

[Oliver Fromme]

Eric Anderson <anderson at centtech.com> wrote:
 > He should also use UFS2, and disable softupdates (if he really doesn't 
 > want them).

He already mentioned that he didn't enable soft-updates.

 > No reason I can think of to use UFS1, but that doesn't mean 
 > there isn't a bug lurking in UFS1.

If he doesn't need UFS2 features, using UFS1 will save some
space, because inode data is smaller in UFS1 (128 vs. 256
bytes per inode).  However, that really doesn't matter much
if he reduces the inode density as I recommended.

On a 300 GB file system using the default newfs parameters,
you have about 36 million inodes.  So using UFS1 will save
about 4500 MB of space (vs. UFS2).  However, with an inode
density of 2^18 there are only 1 million inodes, so UFS1
makes only a difference of 136 MB.

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

"To this day, many C programmers believe that 'strong typing'
just means pounding extra hard on the keyboard."
        -- Peter van der Linden