when you say read 2 files in the same time, FreeBSD will readahead at most
MAXPHYS from one file, then from file 2, from file 1 etc.
128kB/s is way too much for todays drives, that can read 1MB within one
access time.
128kB/s is way to much , and you set it to 1024, or did you mean way to low
Thank you for your explanation.
from what i tested 1MB is optimal on modern drives, 2MB doesn't speed up
much (if any) but increases latency.
use lower values for old drives (<20GB) and low memory (<=64MB) machines
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> What does MAXPHYS mean (yes max raw I/O transfer) and do? A little
> bit more specific if you may.
how large can be single read from disk.
when you say read 2 files in the same time, FreeBSD will readahead at most
MAXPHYS from one file, then from file 2, from file 1 etc.
128kB/s is way too
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Wojciech Puchar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What does MAXPHYS mean (yes max raw I/O transfer) and do? A little
>> bit more specific if you may.
>
> how large can be single read from disk.
>
> when you say read 2 files in the same time, FreeBSD will readahead at m
What does MAXPHYS mean (yes max raw I/O transfer) and do? A little
bit more specific if you may.
how large can be single read from disk.
when you say read 2 files in the same time, FreeBSD will readahead at most
MAXPHYS from one file, then from file 2, from file 1 etc.
128kB/s is way too muc
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Wojciech Puchar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> I was just reading stuff about ZFS, and wonder if it would be
>> beneficial for me to use it. I store a lots of multimedia files in my
>> HD, they usually have the size of > 1GB (e.g. 1.2, 1.7 or even
>> bigge
Hi,
I was just reading stuff about ZFS, and wonder if it would be
beneficial for me to use it. I store a lots of multimedia files in my
HD, they usually have the size of > 1GB (e.g. 1.2, 1.7 or even
bigger), and my system is running UFS.
simply use UFS with big blocks (-b 65536 -f 8192) will
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Wojciech Puchar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UFS performs excellent on large drives/volumes. not in theory but in
> practice, i use it every place, on volumes up to 3GB
>
> NO PROBLEMS.
Do you mean 3TB instead?
___
freeb
>Hi,
> I was just reading stuff about ZFS, and wonder if it would be
>beneficial for me to use it. I store a lots of multimedia files in my
>HD, they usually have the size of > 1GB (e.g. 1.2, 1.7 or even
>bigger), and my system is running UFS.
> so can I buy a new HD, say 500GB, and format it ZFS
Hi,
I was just reading stuff about ZFS, and wonder if it would be
beneficial for me to use it. I store a lots of multimedia files in my
HD, they usually have the size of > 1GB (e.g. 1.2, 1.7 or even
bigger), and my system is running UFS.
so can I buy a new HD, say 500GB, and format it ZFS style
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Wojciech Puchar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
UFS performs excellent on large drives/volumes. not in theory but in
practice, i use it every place, on volumes up to 3GB
NO PROBLEMS.
Do you mean 3TB instead?
yes. sorry
___
all the input from various users I assume zfs would be the file system of
choice for such large volumes?
Are there limitations or downsides using UFS on such a large volume?
no, unless you will create it with default options.
use -i big-power-of-two simply to have enough inodes for your files,
12 matches
Mail list logo
