Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:27:05 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> To: pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best file system for a busy webserver Message-ID: <201208161727.q7GHR5de000512@mail.r-bonomi.com> In-Reply-To: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500 > From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> > To: FreeBSD Questions List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> > Subject: Best file system for a busy webserver > > Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy > webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better > than any other? > > Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box running FreeBSD 9, and > since I'm starting from scratch, I'm questioning all my previous > assumptions. "Insufficient data" for a meaningful answer. A _LOT_ depends on the natue of the pages being served, Is the underlying data fairly 'static', or is it being frequently updated? If 'updated', you need to take into consideration things like 'how often', 'how large', and 'how localized' (in terms of the filesystem structure), are the updates. If file access is almost exclusively reads, the filesystem choice doesn't make much difference O/S 'caching', which occurs above the filesystem level, will handle the 'most frequently accessed' stuff.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201208161727.q7GHR5de000512>