From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Jan 24 22:29: 6 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD4F37B401 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:29:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.adelphia.net (pa-plum1b-166.pit.adelphia.net [24.53.161.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9699B43ED8 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 22:28:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from potentialtech.com ([172.16.0.95]) by mail.adelphia.net (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h0P6UHko004413; Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:30:18 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Message-ID: <3E322EC2.7000506@potentialtech.com> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 01:29:22 -0500 From: Bill Moran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20021127 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Stevens Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Filesystem tuning parameters References: <2F48C1C3-3022-11D7-8DC1-003065715DA8@pursued-with.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Kevin Stevens wrote: > > On Friday, Jan 24, 2003, at 16:40 US/Pacific, Bill Moran wrote: > >> See >> /usr/share/doc/papers/diskperf.ascii.gz >> on your system. This is the authoritative resource as to why those >> settings >> are they way they are. > > ?? Sure that's the correct doc? It involves throughput tests of > different disk systems on VAXen, but doesn't really discuss any of these > parameter changes. They do go into rotational delay a bit. Hmmm ... perhaps I'm wrong. I thought that was it, but I remember more information about the testing that led to decisions about the way the filesystem works. >> So ... it's like this: >> 1) If you really want to fill your drive up past 90%, understand that UFS >> simply isn't designed to do that efficiently. > > Ok... and what you're confirming is that this is a percentage > requirement, so it doesn't vary significantly between 120MB and 120GB > filesystems? Yes. While I don't understand the deep magic of it, the fact is the amount of free space needed to ensure efficient block allocation is a percentage of total filesystem space. >> 4) If you bought a 120G drive because you have 119.5G of data to store, I >> think you made a mistake and should either return it for a bigger >> drive >> or accept the performance hit. > > My confusion came from various bits of documentation that suggest the > primary purpose of minfree is to provide notification and buffer > time/space for sysadmins to deal with filesystems nearing capacity. Well, fact is you _can_ fill a disk past the 92% mark. But as a sysadmin, you'll definately want to be alerted to this because the write algorithm changes from time to space and performance drops dramatically. > In > my scenario, 12GB would be total overkill to commit for that purpose, > regardless of how much data I needed to store. Understanding that it is > required for filesystem overhead makes the resource usage justifiable. > Thanks! I see where you're coming from. Glad I could help clear it up. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message