Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 09 Jun 2006 07:27:59 -0500
From:      Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
To:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock
Message-ID:  <4489694F.1050503@centtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <200606091053.k59ArYQs029626@lurza.secnetix.de>
References:  <200606091053.k59ArYQs029626@lurza.secnetix.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
>  > The FS is intended for very few very large files and was created 
>  > with "newfs -b 65536 -O1" (no softupdates).
> 
> Did you also increase the fragment size (-f option)?
> The default is 2048 bytes, and I wouldn't expect a b/f
> ratio of 32:1 to work very well.  In fact I'm surprised
> that you have so little problems.  :-)
> 
> If you intend to have very few very large files that are
> accessed sequentially most of the time, it is probably
> better to set both block and fragment size to the same
> value (e.g. 16k), essentially disabling fragmentation.
> You should also reduce the inode density by specifying
> a larger bytes-per-inode value (-i option), a typical
> value would be 262144 (2^18).
> 
> Carefully fiddling with the -g and -h options might also
> improve performance a bit, see newfs(8).

He should also use UFS2, and disable softupdates (if he really doesn't 
want them).  No reason I can think of to use UFS1, but that doesn't mean 
there isn't a bug lurking in UFS1.


Eric



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4489694F.1050503>