From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 9 10:53:42 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9015616A418 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:53:42 +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 DD2AF43D70 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:53:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (pahevu@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k59ArZhb029627 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:53:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.13.4/8.13.1/Submit) id k59ArYQs029626; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:53:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from olli) Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:53:34 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <200606091053.k59ArYQs029626@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200606081346.04908.mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-fs 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]); Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:53:40 +0200 (CEST) Cc: Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock 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: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 10:53:42 -0000 Mikhail Teterin wrote: > The FS is intended for very few very large files and was created > with "newfs -b 65536 -O1" (no softupdates). Did you also increase the fragment size (-f option)? The default is 2048 bytes, and I wouldn't expect a b/f ratio of 32:1 to work very well. In fact I'm surprised that you have so little problems. :-) If you intend to have very few very large files that are accessed sequentially most of the time, it is probably better to set both block and fragment size to the same value (e.g. 16k), essentially disabling fragmentation. You should also reduce the inode density by specifying a larger bytes-per-inode value (-i option), a typical value would be 262144 (2^18). Carefully fiddling with the -g and -h options might also improve performance a bit, see newfs(8). 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. PI: int f[9814],b,c=9814,g,i;long a=1e4,d,e,h; main(){for(;b=c,c-=14;i=printf("%04d",e+d/a),e=d%a) while(g=--b*2)d=h*b+a*(i?f[b]:a/5),h=d/--g,f[b]=d%g;}