Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:02:57 +0100
From:      Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
To:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Cc:        Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com>
Subject:   Re: Best file system for a busy webserver
Message-ID:  <20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve@sohara.org>
In-Reply-To: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost>
References:  <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> 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/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve>