From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 13 12:48:19 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8A2616A41F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:48:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh2.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 248C143D49 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:48:18 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh2.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k0DCmDHI016346; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:48:13 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <43C7A18D.8060904@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 06:48:13 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20060112) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patrik Forsberg References: <375DD163B075E34EA3C10A6286E34A54C1D4B5@exhsto1.se.dataphone.com> In-Reply-To: <375DD163B075E34EA3C10A6286E34A54C1D4B5@exhsto1.se.dataphone.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.87.1/1239/Thu Jan 12 05:36:22 2006 on mh2.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, Alexander Subject: Re: FreeBSD as Server X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:48:19 -0000 Patrik Forsberg wrote: >> I am ISP admin. All my server work under Linux, but I want to try for >> this function FreeBSD. Once I used server under FreeBSD 5.3. Now I >> testing FreeBSD 6.0. >> I liked functions such as dummy net, simple configuring, etc. But in >> FreeBSD I don't have alternative FileSystems exclude UFS and UFS2. On >> high-loaded FileServer is good idea to use XFS or ReiserFS, >> but this FS >> don't supported as well as in Linux. How I can to solve this problem? >> > > UFS2 scales very well on a havy loaded server so I see no reason to use > RaiserFS or any other FS in FreeBSD ? > One good reason, would be journaling, but that isn't necessarily compelling. > I've ran, and is about to do so, a major newfeed machine, which use alot > of disk i/o, on UFS2 without any trouble. > With softupdate in UFS2 the fsck in case of a crash is very time > limited. > I don't believe softupdates changes the recovery time any significant amount, but it does ensure meta-data consistency. With background fsck, your startup time can be reduced, which is very nice. > As for XFS and ReiserFS support you do have the support in ports: > > Path: /usr/ports/sysutils/progsreiserfs > Info: Utilities and library to manipulate ReiserFS partitions > > Path: /usr/ports/sysutils/xfsprogs > Info: A set of utilities and library to manipulate an xfs filesystem Note that those are read-only support. I have many FreeBSD servers here, that are *VERY HEAVILY* used, and the entire company depends on them. I have 100's of GB's to tens of TB's hosted on FreeBSD servers, and I'm very happy to say it performs incredibly well, and is very stable. Both 5.4(STABLE) and 6-STABLE are very solid for serving. One thing to be warned about - the larger the single filesystem, the more memory you will need for fsck's. Actually, it's more dependant on number of files, but the relationship is there. Full 2Tb filesystems (for me) require about 2.5GB of memory available for fsck use, YMMV. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------