Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:10:48 +0100
From:      krad <kraduk@gmail.com>
To:        Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, fullermd@over-yonder.net
Subject:   Re: getting to 4K disk blocks in ZFS
Message-ID:  <CALfReyfazoZ-Xjwnb=iMmrhU30CXNyMVjdOr=VygzcwjQKEo8Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201410132047.s9DKlGxD030176@gw.catspoiler.org>
References:  <43D94A22FBD2477FBBDEFF16C0088DDA@multiplay.co.uk> <201410132047.s9DKlGxD030176@gw.catspoiler.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
your also forgetting you can enable compression, which on mail files will
give you a large ratio

On 13 October 2014 21:47, Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org> wrote:

> On 13 Oct, Steven Hartland wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>
> >
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:48:27AM -0700 I heard the voice of
> >> Darren Pilgrim, and lo! it spake thus:
> >>>
> >>> If the default is 4k and (for the limited time they're still common)
> >>> you use true 512b disks, you can waste space.  Sure, but how much
> >>> space?
> >>
> >> The median file in /usr/ports is 408 bytes.  Over 90% of the files are
> >> under 2k, which means the wastage for them is over 100% (before
> >> counting what gain compression might get).  A little offhand mathery
> >> says it's about 78% extra overhead on the whole.
> >>
> >> And that includes the almost hundred megs (over 22% of the total size
> >> of the FS) for the INDEX.db, plus the ~90 megs of the flat INDEX files
> >> (another 20%).  If you pull those out, the overhead is 130%.
> >>
> >>
> >> (To be sure, relatively few people have ports trees eating most of
> >> their space, but still; it's pretty pathological.  I for one did
> >> decide some years back to always force 4k on any new FSen to make
> >> future life simpler, accepting the bloat, but it's there.)
> >
> > And thats before you add the overhead if your running RAIDZ...
> >
> > A good read on this is
> > http://blog.delphix.com/matt/2014/06/06/zfs-stripe-width/
>
> This is a timely subject.  I'm planning on moving my Cyrus imap mail
> spool from a 4K/1K UFS filesystem to a three drive raidz1.  It looks
> like the UFS fragmentation overhead is about 2.4%.  ZFS ashift=12
> increases that to about 17%.  Combine that with raidz and now the
> overhead is about 40%.  Ouch!
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALfReyfazoZ-Xjwnb=iMmrhU30CXNyMVjdOr=VygzcwjQKEo8Q>