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>