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 most
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
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
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
Good Day.
I have just managed to get myself a 1.5tb Seagate drive and after reading
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?
And if I do go with ZFS how do I
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
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
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
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?
___
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 11:31 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
bigger), and my
13 matches
Mail list logo
