On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
> webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
> than any other?
>
> Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box running FreeBSD 9, and
the OCZ Vertex IIIs (About $1/G these days) wired into a *hardware*
RAID controller setup to mirror them. This gives you blazing speed
just like i would read some popular street PC newspaper.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://list
OK I would say there's no pressing reason to consider ZFS for this
another ZFS fanatics. it is about performance.
direction for a filesystem, at 15GB if performance ever becomes a problem a
RAID1 of SSDs with UFS would make it fly probably into the hundreds of hits
per second range.
cl
On 08/16/2012 01:16 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably
better than any other?
With only 15G of data, I'd recommend a pair of 60G SSD drives li
--On August 16, 2012 9:42:30 PM +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith
wrote:
I don't even know where to begin. There's about 15G of data on the
server.
OK I would say there's no pressing reason to consider ZFS for this
purpose. You'd save a bit of time in crash recovery with no fsck going on,
an
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:16:26 -0500
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> --On August 16, 2012 6:02:57 PM +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
> > Paul Schmehl wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
> >> webserver (7 million h
Paul Schmehl writes:
> >That's an average of about 3 hits per second. If it's static pages
> > then pretty much anything will handle it easily (but please don't use
> > FAT). If it's dynamic then the whole problem is more complex than a
> > simple page rate. If that load is bursty it may
--On August 16, 2012 6:02:57 PM +0100 Steve O'Hara-Smith
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
Paul Schmehl wrote:
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably
better than any other?
T
> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
> From: Paul Schmehl
> To: FreeBSD Questions List
> Subject: Best file system for a busy webserver
>
> Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
> webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one sys
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 10:45:25 -0500
Paul Schmehl wrote:
> Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
> webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
> than any other?
That's an average of about 3 hits per second. If it's static page
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
than any other?
Use stock UFS, just configure it properly. most importantly noatime.
Amount of cached data is more important than hit count. Unless yo
Does anyone have any opinions on which file system is best for a busy
webserver (7 million hits/month)? Is anyone one system noticeably better
than any other?
Just curious. I'm getting ready to setup a new box running FreeBSD 9, and
since I'm starting from scratch, I'm questioning all my pre
12 matches
Mail list logo
