UFS2 snapshots on large filesystems
olli at lurza.secnetix.de
Tue Nov 15 01:54:21 PST 2005
Eric Anderson <anderson at centtech.com> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > [...]
> > No. Your /var has just 663 inodes in use, and it has about
> > 1.7 million unused inodes which is just a waste.
> Oops! Thanks for the correction - I misread it in my pasting frenzy. :)
> It may be a waste, but perhaps the right answer would be in the form
> of a patch to make sysinstall create /var partitions with different
> settings, if you feel strongly about it.
Well, I don't feel very strongly about sysinstall, but I do
think that too few people read the tuning(7) manpage. :-)
I think sysinstall's default values (which just uses newfs'
defaults) are a good trade-off. If you run out of inodes,
then you are in serious trouble -- you probably have to re-
create the whole file system (dump, newfs, restore or simi-
lar). But if you have way too many inodes, then you waste
some space and fsck time, but that's not a critical problem
to most users, because at least it keeps running.
That's probably the reason why the default values provide
a rather high inode density. And after all, you _can_
change it if you know what you're doing (after reading
tuning(7) and otehr documentation). Even sysinstall pro-
vides a way to enter newfs flags, so you can easily change
the inode density from the beginning.
It's also interesating to note that, historically, the /var
partition is used to hold spool areas, such as the spool
of news servers. INN's tradition spool layout (which is
still popular for small servers because it allows better
control) stores each article in a separate file, so you
need a significant number of inodes in /var in that case.
(Of course, for "big" news servers, you usually choose a
different spool layout such as cycle buffers, and you
don't put them on the /var partition but on their own
optimized file system.)
It all comes down to the fact that neither sysinstall nor
newfs know in advance what purpose a file system will be
used for, so they have no idea what default inode density
would be suitable. So they choose rather conservative
defaults for the "worst case", i.e. many inodes. It's up
to the user to change the defaults if appropriate.
Of course it's not an error to have way too many inodes.
But I think it's a suboptimal setting, and it it always
worth to think about the usage of the file system in ad-
vance, before running newfs. Each inode takes 256 bytes
in UFS2 (in UFS1 it's 128 bytes). On a 250 Gbyte disk
(typical size nowadays), the default parameters will
reserve space for 30 million inodes. That's 7,5 Gbyte
reserved to inodes which will not be available to actual
file data (and which adds to fsck time significantly).
> Right, this is typical for the types of data I store, which often
> average 8-16k per file, which I think is the default expectation for
> UFS2 filesystems, so I'm making a generalization that a majority of
> users also have a ~16k average filesize.
I don't think that's true. The default values rather pre-
sume the _minimum_ (not average) file size that most users
will need, so that only very few users will hit the inode
limit. If the newfs default was the expected average file
size, then 50% of users would hit the limit (and then flood
the mailing lists).
As I explained above, the default (which is one inode per
8 kbyte of data if you use the standard bsize/fsize) is
choosen to be a conservative value, so that only very few
people will need to lower it.
> True - agreed, however I'm assuming most users of FreeBSD's UFS2
> filesystem are in the 16k average filesize range.
I don't think so. Nowadays, multimedia data makes a signi-
ficant share of all data stored, and such files tend to be
rather large. That's why they got their own file system in
my server, so I can tune the newfs parameters for it, so I
don't waste several Gbytes of space and don't have to wait
half an hour for fsck.
> If the average
> users' average file size is larger, than the default newfs parameters
> should be changed,
As explained above, the newfs default parameters should be
rather low, so they work for the "worst case". E.g. the
source tree of FreeBSD RELENG_6 has indeed an average file
size of 16082 bytes (I just looked a minute ago). But this
is certainly not the typical use that takes up most of
user's disk space. On my root file system (standard Free-
BSD installation), the average file size is 42 Kbyte, on
/var it's 37 kbyte, and on /usr it's 60 kbyte, even though
it contains /usr/src and the ports collection (which is
thousands of very small files).
> > Of course, if you design a file system for different
> > purposes, your requirements might be completely different.
> > A maildir server or squid proxy server definitely requires
> > a much higher inode density, for example.
> If a filesystem were to be designed from scratch, having the inode
> density variable or automatically grow to fulfill the needs, would be
> the most efficient probably.
Yes, I agree completely.
Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.
"... there are two ways of constructing a software design: One way
is to make it so simple that there are _obviously_ no deficiencies and
the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no _obvious_
deficiencies." -- C.A.R. Hoare, ACM Turing Award Lecture, 1980
More information about the freebsd-fs