From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun  9 17:13:20 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: fs@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD7F16A418
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  9 Jun 2006 17:13:20 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: from aldan.algebra.com (aldan.algebra.com [216.254.65.224])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0112643D73
	for <fs@freebsd.org>; Fri,  9 Jun 2006 17:13:17 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: from corbulon.video-collage.com
	(static-151-204-231-237.bos.east.verizon.net [151.204.231.237])
	by aldan.algebra.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k59HDG2k036305
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK);
	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:13:17 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
Received: from [172.21.130.86] (mx-broadway [38.98.68.18])
	by corbulon.video-collage.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id
	k59HDAXc006896
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:13:11 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com)
From: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>
Organization: Virtual Estates, Inc.
To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:13:04 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
References: <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<200606091253.37446.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>
	<4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org>
In-Reply-To: <4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="koi8-u"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200606091313.04913.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.88/1523/Fri Jun 9 03:10:10 2006 on
	corbulon.video-collage.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.43
Cc: fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:13:20 -0000

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