I recently upgraded the disk of my mail server. The server was initially
installed with a single 36GB RAID1 volume with FreeBSD 5 (summer 2004).
Over the years I upgraded to FreeBSD 6, and some months ago I added
another 36GB RAID1 volume and one 72GB RAID1 volume.
I then proceeded to copy my
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Angelo Turetta wrote:
I tried understanding where the difference was, but I cannot work-out
any cause in the file systems:
I believe Cyrus will create hard links if the same email message is kept
in multiple folders.
Do you know if this
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Angelo Turetta wrote:
I then proceeded to copy my cyrus-imapd partition from /usr/local/
mail (on /dev/da0s1f) to the new 76GB /mail (/dev/da2s1d). During
this copy I noticed the disk usage of the mailboxes (as reported by
du(8)) growing about 20% larger in the
On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Angelo Turetta wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Angelo Turetta wrote:
I tried understanding where the difference was, but I cannot work-
out any cause in the file systems:
I believe Cyrus will create hard links if the same email message is
Chuck Swiger skrev:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 12:23 PM, Angelo Turetta wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Mar 12, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Angelo Turetta wrote:
I tried understanding where the difference was, but I cannot
work-out any cause in the file systems:
I believe Cyrus will create hard links if the
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is more effective IMHO.
I'd be happy if
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is more effective IMHO.
I'd be happy if
approx. 15 partitions ranging from 400 GB to 2 TB in size. If the
server for some reason had crashed the webservers were unable to
the question is about the reason it crashed...
access the nfs-mounted partitions during the period the server did a
snapshot of a partition, in order to perform
I have tried using a 4K/0.5K UFS1 filesystem in the past and found the
performance was very poor. UFS2 was based on 16K/2K and I would expect
it to perform even worse with 4K/0.5K. I would suggest you try 8K/1K.
not for small files. you are light with large files but it's not THAT bad
as
Thank you very much.
Try zfs on amd64 unless your app doesn't work well with zfs or your
does zfs have RELIABLE and USABLE software allowing to efficiently backup
large filesystems to other media? (DVD's, tapes, other hard discs)
___
approx. 15 partitions ranging from 400 GB to 2 TB in size. If the
server for some reason had crashed the webservers were unable to
the question is about the reason it crashed...
access the nfs-mounted partitions during the period the server did a
snapshot of a partition, in order to
Try zfs on amd64 unless your app doesn't work well with zfs or your
does zfs have RELIABLE and USABLE software allowing to efficiently backup
large filesystems to other media? (DVD's, tapes, other hard discs)
Zfs has send/receive where you can do snapshots and send them to a
different host.
snapshot of a partition, in order to perform a background-fsck and
thus our website was down. So ufs2 does not scale well.
Reasons not related to the nfs-server itself. FreeBSD itself was
rock-solid. It was firmware-related on the storage-side.
i always use software mirror concat or both in
On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 14:11:19 +0400, Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
Greetings,
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
On 7/2/07, Nikolay Pavlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 14:11:19 +0400, Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
Greetings,
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system
On 2007-Jun-27 14:11:19 +0400, Nguyen Tam Chinh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: FreeBSD and UFS2 have
Greetings,
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is more effective IMHO.
I'd
In response to Nguyen Tam Chinh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k
Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
[snipped]
Please advice with optimizations or tricks. [...]
Did you already looked at 'man 7 tuning'?
HTH,
Philipp
--
www.familie-ost.info/~pj
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
19 matches
Mail list logo
