Writing contigiously to UFS2?
ivoras at freebsd.org
Fri Sep 21 05:51:53 PDT 2007
Stefan Esser wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
>> (ZFS is not the ultimate solution: 1) replacing UFS monoculture with ZFS
>> monoculture will sooner or later yield problems, and 2) sometimes a
>> "dumb" unix filesystem is preferred to the "smart" ZFS).
> Both XFS and ReiserFS are quite complex compared to UFS definitely
> not well described by the term "dumb" ;-)
Of course, I mean no disrespect to them, I've read enough papers on them
to realize their complexity :) By "dumb" I meant they behave like "point
them to a device and they will stick to it", i.e. they don't come with a
> The FFS paper by McKusick et.al describes the historical allocation
> strategy, which was somewhat modified in FreeBSD a few years ago in
> order to adapt to modern disk sizes (larger cylinder groups, meaning
> it is not a good idea to create each new directory in a new cylinder
[thinking out loud:]
From experience (not from reading code or the docs) I conclude that
cylinder groups cannot be larger than around 190 MB. I know this from
numerous runnings of newfs and during development of gvirstor which
interacts with cg in an "interesting" way. I know the reasons why cgs
exist (mainly to lower latencies from seeking) but with todays drives
and memory configurations it would sometimes be nice to make them larger
or in the extreme, make just one cg that covers the entire drive.
Though, this extreme would in case of concat configurations put all of
block and inode metadata on the first drive which could have interesting
effects on performance. Of course, with seek-less drives (solid state)
there's no reason to have cgs at all.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/attachments/20070921/39ee2582/signature.pgp
More information about the freebsd-fs