From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 15:56:19 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F086106566B for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8334F8FC0C for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7GFtpX1053801; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:55:55 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q7GFtmuX053798; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:55:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:55:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Paul Schmehl In-Reply-To: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> Message-ID: References: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 17:56:00 +0200 (CEST) Cc: FreeBSD Questions List Subject: Re: Best file system for a busy webserver 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: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:56:19 -0000 > Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy > webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better > than any other? Use stock UFS, just configure it properly. most importantly noatime. Amount of cached data is more important than hit count. Unless your webpage is incredibly bad design or constantly load different set of large amount of small file - filesystem shouldn't be a limit. Repetitive file fetches would go from cache. > Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box running FreeBSD 9, and > since I'm starting from scratch, I'm questioning all my previous assumptions. Small files will be cached, if you push data from large set of big files that will not fit cache, make sure transfers will be fine. use 32kB block size, 4kB fragment size for UFS add options MAXPHYS=2097152 (or even twice of that) to your kernel config so there will be large transfers from disk. This tuning will not make any harm to small files. My recommendation is for serving files by WWW (or actually - by any means). If you ask for SQL database subsystem then answer is completely different: make sure all database fits memory cache, or is on SSD or it WILL BE SLOW no matter what you use. Do everything you can to limit amount of sync writes. if you use SSD and your database software allow dedicating raw partition - do it. If not - it is not crucial but useful, avoid double buffering of unix cache and database cache.