From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Feb 3 21: 6:38 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1074437B401 for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:06:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85AE43F3F for ; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:06:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ryan@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1079) id 896C6AE165; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:06:31 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:06:31 -0800 From: Ryan Dooley To: Ryan Dooley , stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: recommendations on the newfs of a 1.0TB fs... Message-ID: <20030204050631.GB81935@elvis.mu.org> References: <20030203194828.GA55143@elvis.mu.org> <20030204043726.GA4323@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030204043726.GA4323@HAL9000.homeunix.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > IIRC, block sizes greater than 16384 can cause significant buffer > cache fragmentation, which can reduce I/O performance. Moreover, > blocks that large will waste space and I/O bandwidth unless most > of the files on the disk are very large. A smaller setting, > e.g. the default, is probably more appropriate. The default wasted too much disk space (we didn't get that 1.0TB of usable space out of it (it was more like 893GB of total usable space.) I do think I am wasting a bit of space. We have under 300 users with more than 150MB of used disk. The rest of the users have between 4k and 100MB worth of materials. Most things are web pages and images (what about 8k a page and 16k for a good png or 64k or a good jpg?) This is kind of why I'm asking. As for performance impacts, I've not seen too much in the way of that. This is one of the fastest file systems I've got in production. The two other "big" file systems are two raids formated with Linux's reiserfs which are pretty darn fast when it comes to smaller files. Overall, I'm really impressed by FreeBSD's stability and scaleablity. The file server has just done more than I would have ever expected and with over a year worth of uptime since our last, um, issue, it's gone the distance... you definatly don't get that from Linux or any MS product. The only thing I'd want from FreeBSD is clustering and HA (with failover for NFS and SAMBA :-) To the development team: Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ryan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message