Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2009 07:56:49 +0000 From: "b. f." <bf1783@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Cc: mkhitrov@gmail.com Subject: Re: UFS2 tuning for heterogeneous 4TB file system Message-ID: <d873d5be0907260056ib6906cbpae649f880ec7493f@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>The file system in question will not have a common file size (which is >what, as I understand, bytes per inode should be tuned for). There >will be many small files (< 10 KB) and many large ones (> 500 MB). A >similar, in terms of content, 2TB ntfs file system on another server >has an average file size of about 26 MB with 59,246 files. Ordinarily, it may have a large variation in file sizes, but can you intervene, and segregate large and small files in separate filesystems, so that you can optimize the settings for each independently? >Ideally, I would prefer that small files do not waste more than 4 KB >of space, which is what you have with ntfs. At the same time, having >fsck running for days after an unclean shutdown is also not a good >option (I always disable background checking). From what I've gathered >so far, the two requirements are at the opposite ends in terms of file >system optimization. I gather you are trying to be conservative, but have you considered using gjournal(8)? At least for the filesystems with many small files? In that way, you could safely avoid the need for most if not all use of fsck(8), and, as an adjunct benefit, you would be able to operate on the small files more quickly: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2006-June/064043.html http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/gjournal-desktop/article.html gjournal has a lower overhead than ZFS, and has proven to be fairly reliable. Also, you can always unhook it and revert to plain UFS mounts easily. b.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d873d5be0907260056ib6906cbpae649f880ec7493f>