heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock

[Robert Watson]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Oliver Fromme wrote:

> > 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.

Ah, I took "A few very large files" to mean "A few very large files that are 
probably too large for UFS1 to represent, as very large is getting very large 
lately" :-).  Switching to UFS1 under those circumstances would be 
problematic.

Robert N M Watson