Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 18:02:57 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> Subject: Re: Best file system for a busy webserver Message-ID: <20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost> References: <47AFB706686083E99B3A3F3E@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500 Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> wrote: > Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy > webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better > than any other? That's an average of about 3 hits per second. If it's static pages then pretty much anything will handle it easily (but please don't use FAT). If it's dynamic then the whole problem is more complex than a simple page rate. If that load is bursty it may make a difference too. Other considerations may come into play - how big is this filesystem (number of files, maximum number of entries in a directory, volume of data) ? Are there many users needing to be protected from each other ? What about archives ? snapshots ? growth ? churn ? uptime requirements, disaster recovery time ? -- Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120816180257.6f5d58e5.steve>