Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:01:44 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> Cc: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Best file system for a busy webserver Message-ID: <20525.17304.916707.3626@jerusalem.litteratus.org> In-Reply-To: <175D3B4E21331C5682EE2148@localhost> References: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> <20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve@sohara.org> <175D3B4E21331C5682EE2148@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Schmehl writes: > > That's an average of about 3 hits per second. If it's static pages > > then pretty much anything will handle it easily (but please don't use > > FAT). If it's dynamic then the whole problem is more complex than a > > simple page rate. If that load is bursty it may make a difference too. > > > > Thanks for the reply. It's a combination. There are many static > pages, but there is also a php-mysql forum that generates pages > on the fly. It accounts for about half of the traffic. I've > always used ufs but am wondering if switching to zfs would make > sense. ZFS is known to use much more RAM than UFS. While (from the 'top' below) you have enough ... is that RAM best used for ZFS, or for something else? Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20525.17304.916707.3626>