Re: More On Samba And Softupdates
On 11/21/2010 2:16 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com mailto:tun...@tundraware.com wrote: This drive is being used as a backup drive for all the workstations on this particular network, and reliable is much more important than slightly faster. As someone already said, SU is probably not the culprit here. I've used Samba + SU for a long time with no such problems although I have no current setups to verify. SU substantially increases disk IO, it's not 'slightly faster' it's much faster. The error you see is probably the result of flaky drive or controller as the additional IO provided by SU allows the flakiness to show through. Although from what you describe my choice for the drive would be gjournal + UFS. If you've got a lot of asynchronous IO that's a better solution. It looks like this may have been a loose cable. After reseating the cable and reinitializing the drive, it seems to be fine. I turned on softupdates and all seems well ... Thanks for responding... -- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
More On Samba And Softupdates
The other day I mentioned I had a problem with a Samba-shared drive that was just installed blowing up. When I rebuilt it, I forgot to enable softupdates but the drive seems to be working flawlessly. I understand it is possible to do this after-the-fact with tunefs. Some questions: Do I have to unmount the drive to do it? What benefit will I get if I turn on softupdates? This drive is being used as a backup drive for all the workstations on this particular network, and reliable is much more important than slightly faster. -- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: More On Samba And Softupdates
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.comwrote: This drive is being used as a backup drive for all the workstations on this particular network, and reliable is much more important than slightly faster. As someone already said, SU is probably not the culprit here. I've used Samba + SU for a long time with no such problems although I have no current setups to verify. SU substantially increases disk IO, it's not 'slightly faster' it's much faster. The error you see is probably the result of flaky drive or controller as the additional IO provided by SU allows the flakiness to show through. Although from what you describe my choice for the drive would be gjournal + UFS. If you've got a lot of asynchronous IO that's a better solution. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: More On Samba And Softupdates
Tim Daneliuk wrote: The other day I mentioned I had a problem with a Samba-shared drive that was just installed blowing up. When I rebuilt it, I forgot to enable softupdates but the drive seems to be working flawlessly. I understand it is possible to do this after-the-fact with tunefs. Some questions: Do I have to unmount the drive to do it? What benefit will I get if I turn on softupdates? This drive is being used as a backup drive for all the workstations on this particular network, and reliable is much more important than slightly faster. As per man tunefs: The tunefs utility cannot be run on an active file system. To change an active file system, it must be downgraded to read-only or unmounted. The benefit is not just speed, but better concurrent multi-user throughput. Operations which would block other I/O finish sooner so the next task can begin without waiting. I actually run mine with aio_load=YES in loader.conf in conjunction with the following in smb.conf: aio read size = 16384 aio write size = 16384 aio write behind = true block size = 16384 use sendfile = Yes Minor performance tweaks aside, should you continue to see the error(s) described in the other mail I sincerely suspect softupdates is not the culprit. -Mike ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: More On Samba And Softupdates
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Adam Vande More amvandem...@gmail.comwrote: Although from what you describe my choice for the drive would be gjournal + UFS. If you've got a lot of asynchronous IO that's a better solution. Instead of asynchronous, I meant multi-threaded. gjournal + UFS handles concurrency better. -- Adam Vande More ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
