Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 07:10:25 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> To: Lee Dilkie <Lee@Dilkie.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default inode number too low in FFS nowadays? Message-ID: <20111102141025.GA58230@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <4EB14A47.8010107@Dilkie.com> References: <B888842A-7DB4-491B-93E3-A376745019F5@sarenet.es> <20111102131311.GA56941@icarus.home.lan> <4EB1476A.3070204@digsys.bg> <4EB14A47.8010107@Dilkie.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:48:55PM +0000, Lee Dilkie wrote: > > On 11/2/2011 1:36 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > > > > On 02.11.11 15:13, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 12:57:33PM +0100, Borja Marcos wrote: > >>> Today I?ve come across an issue long ago forgotten :) Running out of > >>> i-nodes. > >> [...] > >> > >> There's a reason /usr on FreeBSD defaults to "all the remaining space on > >> the disk" if you pick the defaults/auto. Surprise. :-) > >> > >> The summarised version is: > >> > >> 1. You have control over this yourself: newfs(8) -i flag. You can even > >> input this flag during sysinstall when building a new system. > >> > >> [...] > > > > Just for the completeness of it, one would use ZFS and be done with > > this issue. :-) > > Are you suggesting that ZFS be the default FS? > > My only concern with ZFS is that it still appears to be in flux and have > some issues. I don't know, from monitoring this list, if those are > issues that heavy load users experience and ZFS is as stable as UFS or > if it isn't. I just know I see issues being raised. This is a valid concern. The posts that come in to -fs and -stable on a weekly basis about ZFS haven't diminished (from what I can tell). Blindly recommending ZFS as a replacement is something I tend to look down on at this point -- but Daniel's point is true, the issue of inodes is more or less moot on ZFS. :-) The important thing to note here is that every ZFS situation has to be treated separate; sometimes there are wider-spread issues that are known or addressed, but the majority of the time the problem is specific to that individual reporter. This is different than how it was, say, a year ago. However, key folks like Ivan Voras, for example, are waiting on ZFS on FreeBSD to "settle down" before revisiting using it. "Settle down" in this context means "when there isn't an issue/commit being done to it practically every week". As for our systems, we use ZFS for /home and /var/mail on multi-user systems, as well as for our system that handles backups, but we don't use things like ZFS-on-root, boot from ZFS pools, GPT, or other "more involved" things; we apply KISS principle as much as possible and that definitely helps. Heck, at this point we only have one loader.conf tunable (vfs.zfs.arc_max), which is great. Regardless we'll be keeping our root, /usr, /var, and /tmp on UFS2 for quite some time: it "just works" with no risks that can catch me off-guard during scenarios where I need things to "just work". (Last thing I need to be dealing with in the middle of a production problem is, say, weird filesystem ordeals...) I also appreciate the commits/focus being done to ZFS on RELENG_8 on a regular basis, and the commit comments have greatly improved in recent days. So it's a little easier to follow, for me anyway. mm@'s posts on zfs-devel are also insightful and given a hint of fixes/issues which Illumos finds and thus can be backported to FreeBSD. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com | | Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ | | UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, US | | Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP 4BD6C0CB |
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111102141025.GA58230>