Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!priam.CS.Berkeley.EDU!edward From: edward@priam.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Wang) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: 512 or 1024K blocks? Date: 30 Aug 1994 11:50:39 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 20 Message-ID: <33v6ef$s1s@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <33tp2tINN2j6@gambier.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: priam.cs.berkeley.edu Cc: In article <33tp2tINN2j6@gambier.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca>, Markus Meister <h5h1@ugrad.cs.ubc.ca> wrote: > >I may find myself installing FreeBSD again (to a different disk) and I >remember the question whether your want a 512 or 1024K block file system, and >it said that the 1024 kind takes more disk space but offfers more performance. >Could someone either point me to a FAQ where this is mentioned, or post >a note saying how much more disk space (typically) is used up and what >kind of performance increase one could reasonably expect with the 1024k >filesystem (I may well be not the only one wondering about that). I >just want some very approximate figures.. I'd be gratefule for such insight. I assume you mean 8k/1k vs. 4k/512 filesystems. It's not at all clear that 4k/512 actually saves you space. I ran some tests a few years ago, and it's really a toss up. The reason is that 4k/512 filesystems have a greater chance of needing indirect blocks. It turns out that there are enough files of intermediate sizes that 8k/1k wins pretty often. I gathered the statistics on my own machine. Your milage may differ.