From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Aug 16 17:29:46 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E75C316A469 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:29:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2001:1b20:1:3::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C05D13C474 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:29:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (hmdazw@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id l7GHTdcS015169 for ; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:29:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id l7GHTdb3015168; Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:29:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:29:39 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200708161729.l7GHTdb3015168@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <14087D0D-B8A7-44F9-9EA7-2DA6C0DEB733@gmail.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-fs User-Agent: tin/1.8.2-20060425 ("Shillay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.11-STABLE (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 19:29:45 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: help needed - tuning a filesystem for rm and cp ? (MORE) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 17:29:47 -0000 Speedtoys wrote: > Will upping these values make a difference on nfs volumes as well? The dirhash optimization is for UFS only. It does not affect NFS clients. Of course, if your NFS _server_ exports any UFS file systems, it benefits from dirhash, too. Whether increasing the dirhash_max value will make a difference depends on two things. First check whether you're actually hitting the current maximum. If you don't, increasing it would be pointless. Second, if you did hit the maximum, try to increase it and perform some benchmarks to find out if the situation improves. If you can't measure a difference, I recommend to go back to the default value. Best regards Oliver PS: Please don't top-post. -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs." -- Robert Firth