Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:46:30 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com>, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock Message-ID: <4489C206.8020507@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <4489AF86.2080901@centtech.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> <4489AF86.2080901@centtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Eric Anderson wrote: > 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)? > It's hard to beleive that NFS would be responsible for corrupting the filesystem. You should be able to have a consistent and correct unmount regardless of whether NFS is in use or what options it is using. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4489C206.8020507>