From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 17:03:03 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30991065678 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:03:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from steve@sohara.org) Received: from uk1rly2283.eechost.net (relay01a.mail.uk1.eechost.net [217.69.40.75]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8014E8FC1D for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:03:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [31.186.37.179] (helo=rpi-1.marelmo.com) by uk1rly2283.eechost.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T23Oz-0006pl-Id; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:58:33 +0100 Received: from [192.168.63.1] (helo=steve.marelmo.com) by rpi-1.marelmo.com with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T23Tb-0008AZ-1f; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:03:19 +0100 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:02:57 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-Id: <20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> References: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.3 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) X-Face: %]+HVL}K`P8>+8ZcY-WGHP6j@&mxMo9JH6_WdgIgUGH)JX/usO0%jy7T~IVgqjumD^OBqX, Kv^-GM6mlw(fI^$"QRKyZ$?xx/ Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Auth-Info: 15567@permanet.ie (plain) Cc: Paul Schmehl Subject: Re: Best file system for a busy webserver X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:03:03 -0000 On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500 Paul Schmehl wrote: > 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? 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. Other considerations may come into play - how big is this filesystem (number of files, maximum number of entries in a directory, volume of data) ? Are there many users needing to be protected from each other ? What about archives ? snapshots ? growth ? churn ? uptime requirements, disaster recovery time ? -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/