From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 29 01:02:06 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2600F1065674 for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:02:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B788FC1C for ; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:02:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7T1220e068411; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:02:02 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id m7T121WG068406; Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:02:01 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:02:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: craig001@lerwick.hopto.org In-Reply-To: <4833.192.168.0.4.1219964459.squirrel@lerwick.hopto.org> Message-ID: <20080829025729.S68369@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> References: <48B705B4.1060208@gmail.com> <4833.192.168.0.4.1219964459.squirrel@lerwick.hopto.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: Michael John Copeland , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: fileserver questions X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:02:06 -0000 > I personally would consider zfs on freeBSD as unstable/experimental on > everything apart from AMD64's with loads of RAM to spare. I have tried tuning for large files UFS offers near-raw performance. it can't be much better. it can be less efficient on concurrent operations because MAXBSIZE is 128KB on FreeBSD. i don't know why it's still that small! i changed #define MAXPHYS (128 * 1024) /* max raw I/O transfer size */ to #define MAXPHYS (1024 * 1024) /* max raw I/O transfer size */ on EVERY machine i own (except those having <128MB RAM) and it works fine, while there are huge difference. you WILL saturade gigabit ethernet port with just 2 gstriped drives and many concurrent users fetching files. make sure gstripe use huge stripes not small (like 256MB), to speed up multiple concurrent access instead of single linear read speed.