ffsbufs vs. bufs - tuning query

[John Temples]

In article <1991May1.230130.29527 at metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU> glenn at suphys.physics.su.OZ.AU (Glenn Geers) writes:
>I'm using ESIX rev. D with only fast filesystems. I've cut back NBUFS
>to 100 and increased the number of ffs buffers to 128.
>Is there any advantage in increasing the number of ffsbufs?

My understanding from talking to tech support is that NBUF allocates
S51K cache buffers, which are not used if you've only got FFS file
systems.  FFSBUFFERS determines the cache size for the FFS (at 8K bytes
per buffer).  My system happens to be configured identically to yours,
and I'm very pleased with my disk performance.
-- 
John W. Temples -- john at jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)