Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:13:04 -0400 From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock Message-ID: <200606091313.04913.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org> References: <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200606091253.37446.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 12:58, Scott Long написав: > Can you actually measure a performance difference with using the -b > 65535 option on newfs? All of the I/O is buffered anyways and > contiguous data is already going to be written in 64k blocks. My reasons for using the largest block size was more of the space efficiency -- the fs typically holds no more than 20 files in 10 directories, but the smallest file is 1Gb in length. This is also why I chose ufs1 (-O1) over ufs2 -- we don't need ACLs on this filesystem. I never benchmarked the speed on the single drives, other than to compare with my RAID5 array (which puzzlingly always loses to a single drive, but that's a different story). Thanks, -mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200606091313.04913.mi%2Bmx>