heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock
olli at lurza.secnetix.de
Sat Jun 10 16:34:03 UTC 2006
Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > If he doesn't need UFS2 features, using UFS1 will save some space,
> > because inode data is smaller in UFS1 (128 vs. 256 bytes per
> > inode). However, that really doesn't matter much if he reduces the
> > inode density as I recommended.
> > On a 300 GB file system using the default newfs parameters, you
> > have about 36 million inodes. So using UFS1 will save about 4500
> > MB of space (vs. UFS2). However, with an inode density of 2^18
> > there are only 1 million inodes, so UFS1 makes only a difference of
> > 136 MB.
> Ah, I took "A few very large files" to mean "A few very large files
> that are probably too large for UFS1 to represent, as very large
> is getting very large lately" :-). Switching to UFS1 under those
> circumstances would be problematic.
Last time I checked, the maximum file size limit (for non-
sparse files) on UFS1 is larger than the maximum file
system size limit (1 TB, IIRC), and therefore a non-issue
in this case. (The limit for sparse files is 8 TB, but
dump files aren't sparse anyway.)
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.
"Python is an experiment in how much freedom programmers need.
Too much freedom and nobody can read another's code; too little
and expressiveness is endangered."
-- Guido van Rossum
More information about the freebsd-fs