From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 31 18:00:32 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEB116A4D1 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:00:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from outmx019.isp.belgacom.be (outmx019.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.2.200]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C4943D3F for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:00:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from geert@lori.mine.nu) Received: from outmx019.isp.belgacom.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) with ESMTP id i7VI0SDC030803 for ; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:00:28 +0200 (envelope-from ) Received: from lori.mine.nu (217-145.244.81.adsl.skynet.be [81.244.145.217]) with ESMTP id i7VI0Nd1030772; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:00:23 +0200 (envelope-from ) Received: by lori.mine.nu (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0C1DAAEC; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 20:00:22 +0200 From: Geert Hendrickx To: Erich Dollansky Message-ID: <20040831180022.GA87511@lori.mine.nu> References: <20040831133551.GA86660@lori.mine.nu> <4134B312.8030309@pacific.net.sg> <1093958674.680.2.camel@book> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1093958674.680.2.camel@book> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i X-GPG-Key: http://lori.mine.nu/gnupgkey.asc X-GPG-Key-ID: 1024D/766C1E92 X-Accept-Language: nl,en cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: bob@sofsis.cl Subject: Re: spreading partitions over multiple drivers X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:00:32 -0000 Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > Geert Hendrickx wrote: > > Hi tuners, > > > > apart from using RAID, what would be the best way to spread load over > > multiple drives? > > > It depends very much on the use of the machine. > > > I was thinking about a partition layout like this: > > disk1: /, swap, /var, /usr, /usr/src, /usr/ports > > disk2: /tmp, swap, /home, /var/www, /usr/obj (+ ports-workdirs) > > > You must spread the directories with a high usage evenly over the > drives. That's why I worked this out. For example when compiling sources or ports, a "make build" would essentially be reading from /usrc/src|ports, writing to /usr/obj, and "make install" would be reading from /usr/obj and writing to /usr. For the rest, the most essential (IMO) is the separation of system (/, /usr) and data (/home, /var/www), and of course spreading of swap. Any other thoughts about this? > > And would it make sense (if the disks are large enough) to split /usr > > into seperate /usr, /usr/local, /usr/X11R6, etc partitions to reduce > > fragmentation? > > > Fragmentation is not a problem for FreeBSD. Fragmentation may be LESS of a problem with UFS, but a moving target like one big /usr (incl src, obj, ports) will get fragmented as well. Splitting up partitions would reduce this fragmentation (as you are essentially defining some "super large blocks"), and may increase filesystem stability in case of crashes etc. Just my 0.02 of course. > Erich GH PS: please CC me as I'm not subscribed.