Why do you want a 512 byte block file system anyway?

[Tim Wright]

In <158 at raysnec.UUCP> shwake at raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) writes:

>tim at delluk.uucp (Tim Wright) writes:

>>Reduced waste of space due to wasting on average 1/4K in the last block
>>instead of 1/2K.
...
>	While the 1/4K figure might appear to be intuitive, running fsanalyze
>on my small ISC 2.2 system showed waste due to unfilled blocks to be less
>than 4% for root, 7% for /usr and /usr2. I'd done a few spot checks some
>time back to validate these figures, and they seemed to be on target.
>Assuming these figures are anywhere near the actual, the performance boost
>from a 1K block file system makes for a clear win.

Agreed, but a news partition is not a normal filesystem !! As has been
pointed out, a significant space saving can be achieved by using a smaller
blocksize. Having said that I'm still not sure I'd bother. Anybody have
any comments on using 'ufs' (BSD FFS) on a news partition. Is it possible to
make it use say 4K blocks and 1/2K frags even if this is not the default ?
Inquiring minds want to know !

Tim
--
Tim Wright, Dell Computer Corp. (UK) | Email address
Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1RW       | Domain: tim at dell.co.uk
Tel: +44-344-860456                  | Uucp: ...!ukc!delluk!tim
"What's the problem? You've got an IQ of six thousand, haven't you?"