heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock

[Eric Anderson]

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.
> 
> 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).

Just curious - what NFS mount options are being used, and are you 
changing any sysctl's (vfs/nfs related)?


Eric



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Anderson        Sr. Systems Administrator        Centaur Technology
Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------