Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 11:44:18 -0600 From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com> To: Adam Vande More <amvandemore@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: More On Samba And Softupdates Message-ID: <4CEAABF2.1050409@tundraware.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikLo%2BhqbDPreTNncNSRSApJW12ztYNFkKZHtTp%2B@mail.gmail.com> References: <4CE94F25.3000609@tundraware.com> <AANLkTikLo%2BhqbDPreTNncNSRSApJW12ztYNFkKZHtTp%2B@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/21/2010 2:16 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tim Daneliuk <tundra@tundraware.com <mailto:tundra@tundraware.com>> wrote: > > > This drive is being used as a backup drive for all the workstations on > this particular network, and "reliable" is much more important than " > slightly faster". > > > As someone already said, SU is probably not the culprit here. I've used > Samba + SU for a long time with no such problems although I have no > current setups to verify. > > SU substantially increases disk IO, it's not 'slightly faster' it's much > faster. The error you see is probably the result of flaky drive or > controller as the additional IO provided by SU allows the flakiness to > show through. Although from what you describe my choice for the drive > would be gjournal + UFS. If you've got a lot of asynchronous IO that's a > better solution. > It looks like this may have been a loose cable. After reseating the cable and reinitializing the drive, it seems to be fine. I turned on softupdates and all seems well ... Thanks for responding... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tim Daneliuk tundra@tundraware.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4CEAABF2.1050409>