From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 31693 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2022 04:49:51 -0000 Received: from 4ess.inri.net (216.126.196.42) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 10 Mar 2022 04:49:51 -0000 Received: from 5ess.inri.net ([107.191.111.177]) by 4ess; Wed Mar 9 23:42:18 -0500 2022 Received: from smtpclient.apple ([166.170.220.193]) by 5ess; Wed Mar 9 23:42:17 -0500 2022 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Stanley Lieber Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Message-Id: References: <186AB882D78934A255DE8AD336826265@musolino.id.au> In-Reply-To: <186AB882D78934A255DE8AD336826265@musolino.id.au> To: 9front@9front.org Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 23:42:16 -0500 X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (19D52) List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: encrypted transactional module API Subject: Re: [9front] new user Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk cwfs has 16k blocks. hjfs has 4k blocks. this makes a huge difference if you have a large number of small files. sl > On Mar 9, 2022, at 11:16 PM, Alex Musolino wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BF >>=20 >> is it worth using hjfs vs cjfs. Not sure of the trade off after I >> switched? >=20 > The main benefit of hjfs(4) would seem to me to be its ability to work > with small disks. Running cwfs(4) on a 10GB VPS is a non-starter. I > think you can run cwfs(4) in a cache-only mode in such a situation, > but then you lose the dump. With hjfs(4) you can have it both ways. >=20 >=20