Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:27:34 -0500
From:      Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com>
To:        Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>
Cc:        fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock
Message-ID:  <4489AF86.2080901@centtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <200606091313.04913.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
References:  <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<200606091253.37446.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>	<4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org> <200606091313.04913.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> 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).

Just curious - what NFS mount options are being used, and are you 
changing any sysctl's (vfs/nfs related)?


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?4489AF86.2080901>