From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Feb 9 13:12:46 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFD716A400 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:12:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9EB13C4A6 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 13:12:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HFVYG-0007LY-8O for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:12:32 +0100 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:12:32 +0100 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:12:32 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:12:07 +0100 Lines: 36 Message-ID: References: <646424.65334.qm@web58613.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070110) In-Reply-To: <646424.65334.qm@web58613.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Sender: news Subject: Re: comments on newfs raw disk ? Safe ? (7 terabyte array) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:12:46 -0000 Arone Silimantia wrote: > dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/da1 bs=1k count=1 > newfs -m 0 /dev/da1 > mount /dev/da1 /mnt > > And that's that. But it seems too good to be true! Can someone please > comment on this scheme and if there are some hidden dangers or lack of > functionality that I will regret in the future ? No dangers at the system level - you can create your file system on any storage-like device, use it and mount it any way you want. Raw disks are a perfectly valid target. > Will it fsck just like any other UFS2 partition I run ? Can I run > quotas and snapshots and everything else on it, just like normal ? Yes. > Other than the fact that I can't boot this, is there _any downside > whatsoever_ to newfs'ing raw disk like this ? Only "collateral" problems because of the partition size: a regular (non-softupdates) fsck will take a LONG time to finish and eat a LOT of memory while it's doing its stuff. You'll need a lot of swap space (1GB per TB? someone had empirical numbers on this, I'm sure) if you think you'll need to fsck it entirely. Creating snapshots will also take a long time on it, and you probably want to search the lists for recommendations about creating snapshots in a second level directory in order not to block the root directory. Related to this is background-fsck which works by creating snapshots, so you'll probably want to disable it. In any case, try every feature you think you'll need before deploying it. Also, write about your experience on this list :)