DragonFly BSD
DragonFly users List (threaded) for 2010-04
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Minimum size for a hammer file system?

From: Sdävtaker <sdavtaker@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 09:10:19 -0500

The problem with the small FSs is the manteinance of them, you will hit the diskfull too fast in very small FS (unless you tune it up propperly and increase the cleanup/prune frequencies).
In my real box i got a 160GB disk and worked fine since hammer was released until now.
In my virtualbox it has a 16GB disk and never crashed, but i got just dfbsd srcs, vim and zsh and use it for dfbsd tests and experiments only.

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 04:47, Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:21:27 +0200
Sascha Wildner <saw@online.de> wrote:

> Am 23.04.2010 09:19, schrieb Colin Adams:
> > I thought I had previously seen (on this mailing list) advice that
> > hammer was designed for use on 500GB systems or bigger. Accordingly, as
> > I only have a 160GB drive, I am not using it.
> >
> > But just now (after reading some of today's messages), I took a look at
> > http://www.dragonflybsd.org/hammer/ to learn more about hammer. There is
> > says it is designed to be used on 50GB or more. So was I misreading
> > earlier, or have improvements meant it is now practical for smaller file
> > systems?
> 50MB is what we recommend officially, thought people also have run it on

       er 50GB

> smaller disks.
> The 500 you read surely was a typo.

       as was that M ;)

Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/


[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]