From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 21:02:19 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC88E1065673 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:02:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from prvs=568424380=pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com) Received: from ip-001.utdallas.edu (ip-001.utdallas.edu [129.110.20.107]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCCB8FC12 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:02:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Group: None X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnMFAMteLVCBbgogTmdsb2JhbABFqlqPbgEBIoJrAQEEATgCPwULC0ZDFBmIBwa7AIsKgzuCPGADiE6gEA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,781,1336366800"; d="scan'208";a="103944005" Received: from zxtm01.utdallas.edu (HELO [129.110.200.11]) ([129.110.10.32]) by ip-001.utdallas.edu with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 16 Aug 2012 16:02:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:02:16 -0500 From: Paul Schmehl To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <46848553A57E8518AD9DCCEB@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20120816214230.0f4fb446.steve@sohara.org> References: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> <20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve@sohara.org> <175D3B4E21331C5682EE2148@localhost> <20120816214230.0f4fb446.steve@sohara.org> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.1.0a1 (Mac OS X) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; size=2408 Cc: Steve O'Hara-Smith Subject: Re: Best file system for a busy webserver X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Paul Schmehl List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 21:02:19 -0000 --On August 16, 2012 9:42:30 PM +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: >> I don't even know where to begin. There's about 15G of data on the >> server. > > OK I would say there's no pressing reason to consider ZFS for this > purpose. You'd save a bit of time in crash recovery with no fsck going on, > and perhaps the checksum mechanism would give some peace of mind - but > really in 15GB silent corruption is a very slow process - now if it were > 15TB ... > Thanks. >> last pid: 40369; load averages: 0.01, 0.03, 0.00 >> up 104+09:33:44 13:14:49 >> 137 processes: 1 running, 136 sleeping >> CPU: 0.7% user, 0.0% nice, 0.1% system, 0.0% interrupt, 99.2% idle >> Mem: 229M Active, 6108M Inact, 1056M Wired, 15M Cache, 828M Buf, 514M >> Free Swap: 16G Total, 28K Used, 16G Free > > OTOH you have plenty of memory lying around doing nothing much > (6108M inactive) so you can easily support ZFS if you want to play with > it's features (the smooth integration of volume management and filesystem > is rather cool). > It's hard, nowadays, to buy a server that's too small for our needs. Most of them are way overspec'd for what this server does. Which is a nice luxury to have. > > It sounds like you have backups or at least some means of restoring > the site in the event of disaster so that's all good. Yes, daily, and the servers are always configured in RAID1. > If there was a > pressing need to be able to get back up fairly quickly and easily I'd be > suggesting ZFS in RAID1 with a hot swap bay in which a third disc goes, > attached as a third mirror, periodically split it off the mirror take > it off site, and replace it with the one that's been off site. > > There's really nothing here that's pushing you in any particular > direction for a filesystem, at 15GB if performance ever becomes a problem > a RAID1 of SSDs with UFS would make it fly probably into the hundreds of > hits per second range. Thanks for the input, Steve. I appreciate it. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson "There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell