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?
Use stock UFS, just configure it properly. most importantly noatime.
Amount of cached data is more important than hit count. Unless your
webpage is incredibly bad design or constantly load different set of large
amount of small file - filesystem shouldn't be a limit.
Repetitive file fetches would go from cache.
Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box running FreeBSD 9, and
since I'm starting from scratch, I'm questioning all my previous assumptions.
Small files will be cached, if you push data from large set of big files
that will not fit cache, make sure transfers will be fine.
use 32kB block size, 4kB fragment size for UFS
add
options MAXPHYS=2097152
(or even twice of that) to your kernel config so there will be large
transfers from disk.
This tuning will not make any harm to small files.
My recommendation is for serving files by WWW (or actually - by any
means).
If you ask for SQL database subsystem then answer is completely different:
make sure all database fits memory cache, or is on SSD or it WILL BE SLOW
no matter what you use.
Do everything you can to limit amount of sync writes.
if you use SSD and your database software allow dedicating raw partition -
do it. If not - it is not crucial but useful, avoid double buffering of
unix cache and database cache.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
