On Wednesday 09 June 2004 12:59 pm, Bill Moran wrote:
> Stijn Hoop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 02:21:40PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > > As a newbie to FreeBSD, I may be way off base, but it seems
> > > very logical to me that the size of your drive or partition
> > > would make a difference on at what percentage full one would
> > > start to notice problems.
> > >
> > > In terms of megs/gigs 80% of 120 gigs still has a lot of
> > > work space left. 80% of 4 gigs is not much. I would think
> > > with a larger drive/partition, one could run at a higher
> > > percentage before trouble started.
> > >
> > > It makes sense to me anyway :)
> >
> > That's what one would like, but UFS doesn't work that way.  It's
> > allocation algorithm assumes 10% of the disk is free -- regardless
> > of actual size. Or so I've been told (multiple times).
> >
> > IMHO this is a bit ridiculous -- I mean, given 1 TB of space
> > (nearly feasible for a home server right now), why would an FS
> > allocator need 10% of that if the files on the volume are averaging
> > 10 MB?
> >
> > But then again, and this is worth noting -- I'm certainly nowhere
> > near as clueful as others on how to design a stable & fast file
> > system.  Seeing as UFS1 is still in use, and has been for the last
> > 20 years (think about it!), I think maybe the tradeoff might make
> > sense to an expert...
> >
> > BTW, note that you really need to consider the perfomance drop for
> > yourself -- like others said, if the files on the volume change
> > infrequently, performance matters little, and space more so.
> I think you've missed the point.
> The designers of UFS/FFS did not design the filesystem to require 10%
> free space in order to perform well.
> They developed the best, fastest (thus the name "fast file system")
> filesystem algorithms they could come up with.
> Then, during testing, they found that these algorithms started to
> perform really poorly when the filesystem got really full.  Thinking
> this might be important, they tested further until they knew exactly
> what point the performance started to drop off at.  They then went
> one step further and developed another algorithm in an attempt to
> maintain as much performance as possible even when the filesystem got
> very full.  This is why you'll occasionally see the "switching from
> time to space" message when your filesystem starts to fill up. The
> filesystem drivers are doing their best to degrade gracefully.
> Now, I'm not going to say that there is no more that can be done.  I
> think the fact is that the two algorithms work well enough that
> nobody has bothered to invest the research into improving them. 
> (That combined with the fact that disk space keeps getting cheaper
> and cheaper, makes it unlikely that anyone will invest much $$$ into
> researching how to use that last 10% while still maintaining top
> performance).

I really agree with what you said here. With what they paid me an hour 
before I retired, I could buy a large HD. Now 2 hours would buy a 
REALLY large HD. People seem to have the tendancy to bleed the last few 
drops of perfomance or space and, I think that they don't understand 
basic economics. I think this is similar to expecting to do a 
portupgrade -fa on a P-200 in a reasonable amount of time. I saw a 
t-shirt one time about "soaring with eagles when you worked with 
turkeys" I laughed at the time..Now I think that soaring with eagles 
has a price and you just can't do it when your system is on the low end 
performance wise.

My basic system has 3x30GB HDs. Why 30GB? Well, they were the smallest 
ata-133 HDs that I could buy locally. Why 3 HDs?. Processes such as 
buildworld work faster when your locale is spread across 3 HDs.


Kent Stewart
Richland, WA

[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to