From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 22 11:27:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A2816A400 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:27:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [83.120.8.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D8743D46 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:27:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (idqfmh@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2MBRYLe068310 for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:27:40 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k2MBRYJt068309; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:27:34 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:27:34 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <200603221127.k2MBRYJt068309@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200603212107.48601.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-stable User-Agent: tin/1.8.0-20051224 ("Ronay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:27:40 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: more weird bugs with mmap-ing via NFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:27:42 -0000 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > (no softupdates). It was created with `-O1 -b 65536 -f 8192' as it is intended > for large files and needs no ACLs (hence no UFS1). Those values are very suboptimal. Whe creating a file system for large files, you should rather decrease the inode density (-i option). Using "-i 262144" should work fine, or even "-i 1048576" (larger values don't make much sense, though). Increasing block size and fragment size like that is not a good idea. In fact, in earlier versions of FreeBSD there were bugs which could lead to file system corruption when 64k block size was used. I don't know if those bugs have been fixed -- maybe nobody knows, because nobody uses such large block sizes, so they aren't extensively tested. ;-) However, you could try setting block size and fragment size to the same value, effectively disabling fragmentation (you don't really need fragments when you have only large files). For example, "-b 8192 -f 8192" should be OK. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. "I started using PostgreSQL around a month ago, and the feeling is similar to the switch from Linux to FreeBSD in '96 -- 'wow!'." -- Oddbjorn Steffensen