From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 9 17:27:51 2006 Return-Path: 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 ED43016A418 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:27:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7357743D78 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:27:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k59HRPVV039426; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:27:25 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <4489AF86.2080901@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:27:34 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060506) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikhail Teterin References: <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200606091253.37446.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> <4489A8CC.8030307@samsco.org> <200606091313.04913.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <200606091313.04913.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1523/Fri Jun 9 02:10:10 2006 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 17:27:52 -0000 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------