heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock

[Scott Long]

Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 12:58, Scott Long написав:
> 
>>Can you actually measure a performance difference with using the -b
>>65535 option on newfs?  All of the I/O is buffered anyways and
>>contiguous data is already going to be written in 64k blocks.
> 
> 
> My reasons for using the largest block size was more of the space 
> efficiency -- the fs typically holds no more than 20 files in 10 directories, 
> but the smallest file is 1Gb in length. This is also why I chose ufs1 (-O1) 
> over ufs2 -- we don't need ACLs on this filesystem.
> 

The space savings you get from UFS1 is that the inodes are half the size 
and the indorect blocks can hold more block pointers.  I don't believe 
that ACLs play a difference here.

> I never benchmarked the speed on the single drives, other than to compare with 
> my RAID5 array (which puzzlingly always loses to a single drive, but that's a 
> different story).

All depends on access alignment and cache behaviour.

Scott