DaemonForums  

Go Back   DaemonForums > FreeBSD > FreeBSD General

FreeBSD General Other questions regarding FreeBSD which do not fit in any of the categories below.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Best Filesystem

Ive been running FreeBSD for years now and have only now on my file server noticed something.

When using UFS2 after the drive is prepared. fdisk,label, etc
i loose a hell of alot of space.

To give example:
a 750Gb drive UFS2 useable space = 609Gb+-
NTFS usable space = 698Gb
ext3fs useable space = 680Gb

please note figures are +-

This is making me wonder if it's not best to use ext3fs in FreeBSD rather than UFS2? What is the performance difference between them? Any input on this issue?
Reply With Quote
  #2   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
corey_james corey_james is offline
Uber Geek
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 238
Thanked 4 Times in 10 Posts
Default

if you use ZFS - you get even less wastage
__________________
"No, that's wrong, Cartman. But don't worry, there are no stupid answers, just stupid people." -- Mr. Garrison

Forum Netiquette
Reply With Quote
  #3   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Smile ZFS?

Does FreeBSD support this?
What is the reliability vs other file systems?
Also what data recovery tools are there on the market in case of the unthinkable?


Thank You For Input!
Reply With Quote
  #4   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
corey_james corey_james is offline
Uber Geek
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 238
Thanked 4 Times in 10 Posts
Default

yes
it's experimental so not very
i doubt there's many
__________________
"No, that's wrong, Cartman. But don't worry, there are no stupid answers, just stupid people." -- Mr. Garrison

Forum Netiquette
Reply With Quote
  #5   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
xiphias xiphias is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 31
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Remember UFS reserves 8% of the space for root. Factor in that hdd manufacturers stick to 'proper' SI quantities (K = 1000, M = 1000000, G = 1000000000) rather than K = 2^10, M = 2^20, etc

So your 750GB is as far as software is concerned 698GB

Less the 8% reserved for root = 642GB

ext3 isn't supported on FreeBSD, you can use ext3 without journalling if you mount your volumes as ext2

I don't know where the missing 30GB have gone, the figures always added up for me.
Reply With Quote
  #6   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
TerryP's Avatar
TerryP TerryP is offline
Arp Constable
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,547
Thanked 112 Times in 104 Posts
Default

And mounting ext3 as ext2 is less useful then ufs2+soft updates.


of all the file systems I've used or oogled, I generally look most favorably on ext3 and ntfs (but drool over concepts used in zfs). I've however never seen any good reasons to store system data on any thing but the native file system for the BSDS. Except when I need to share it with something else, in which case fat32 and ext2 come into play.
__________________
My Journal

Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.
Reply With Quote
  #7   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Figures

xiphias: i have no idea where the space went. I will confirm everything first.

TerryP: Less usefull meaning? Worse performance i imagine...


However im running this in file server across network so doubt i will loose anything above what the LAN is already restricting me!
I need space over speed. (Obviously a balance)

Top speed = 12m on 100lan
22m on 1000m

Actual copy rate given...
Reply With Quote
  #8   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
xiphias xiphias is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 31
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

UFS2 implements an alternative to journalling called Soft Updates. Soft Updates is an attempt to maintain consistency on the disk, so that recovery from a crash is less of problem. Soft Updates is almost like a journal of metadata held in memory. Ext2 on the otherhand has no journalling functionality, Ext3 is essentially Ext2 with a journal. I think this is what TerryP is referring to.

On a 100Mbps the network is definitely the bottleneck, on a lightly loaded 1000Mbps network the hard drive is the bottle neck. The only time I've achieved the maximum speed of my gigabit network is transferring files already cached in main memory of the source host. I think the speed of your hardware is a bigger concern than the speed differences between file systems on the same hardware.
Reply With Quote
  #9   (View Single Post)  
Old 28th May 2008
Oliver_H's Avatar
Oliver_H Oliver_H is offline
Real Name: Oliver Herold
UNIX lover
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 429
Thanked 26 Times in 22 Posts
Default

I'm using UFS2+SU with huge storage areas and sometimes ext3 in Linux with a full journal because of reliability. Ext2 is comparable to FAT in Windows95, some power shortage and you can say good bye to your lovely data
__________________
use UNIX or die :-)
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

xiphias: are my network speeds considered acceptable then?

Im very disappointed with 1000m tops of 20-20something copy rate.


As for filesystem, so the conclusion is no matter what i choose the network will be the bottleneck so therefore i might aswell choose one that offers least space lost after format?
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
richardpl richardpl is offline
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 284
Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Wonder if anybody of these people ever have read newfs(8) and/or tunefs(8) FreeBSD System Manager's Manual page.

NOTE: Look for -m switch.


Of course UFS2 is the best (Just look comparasion of fs on Wikipedia) - with various GEOM plugins UFS2 is even much better ....

Last edited by richardpl; 28th May 2008 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
xiphias xiphias is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 31
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

richardpl, I have already offered the explanation that the default 8% reserved for root as a cause for the missing space. Perhaps you should more carefully read the posts before taking a stab at us. Also UFS2 isn't the best solution for every scenario.

12MB/s is about the max you'll see on a 100Mbps network.
22MB/s is about normal for the read speed of a IDE hard drive
125MB/s is about the max you'll see on a 1Gbps network.

I have managed about 118MB/s copying a 350MB (yes 1.5 seconds for the transfer) file over nfs that was cached in the memory of the source host. If I copy a file from the hdd of the server then I can achieve about 50MB/s. So the hard drive is the bottleneck here (they are sATA by the way)
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
richardpl richardpl is offline
Spam Deminer
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 284
Thanked 25 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xiphias View Post
richardpl, I have already offered the explanation that the default 8% reserved for root as a cause for the missing space. Perhaps you should more carefully read the posts before taking a stab at us. Also UFS2 isn't the best solution for every scenario.
Sorry but nobody mentioned how to change that 8% to 1% or less ... And I have read whole thread more than once. Backstabing posters .... no I am not doing that

Quote:
Originally Posted by xiphias
12MB/s is about the max you'll see on a 100Mbps network.
22MB/s is about normal for the read speed of a IDE hard drive
125MB/s is about the max you'll see on a 1Gbps network.

I have managed about 118MB/s copying a 350MB (yes 1.5 seconds for the transfer) file over nfs that was cached in the memory of the source host. If I copy a file from the hdd of the server then I can achieve about 50MB/s. So the hard drive is the bottleneck here (they are sATA by the way)
That's almost correct. My hard disk can do 33MB/s
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
xiphias xiphias is offline
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 31
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardpl View Post
That's almost correct. My hard disk can do 33MB/s
Again, I said about normal. The speed can vary widely depending whereabouts on the data is stored on the drive, there are also other considerations to take into account, for example on my laptop with a pATA drive I can see 35MB/s from data at the front of the drive, down to about 27 at the back of the drive. The actual hdd and hdd controller also affect the speed
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
harisman's Avatar
harisman harisman is offline
Fdisk Soldier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hellas (Greece)
Posts: 66
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Default

tuning(7) is your friend.. This man page covers a lot of your issues, together with those richardpl gave you. Read it carefully

Last edited by harisman; 28th May 2008 at 03:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default SATA?

The Drive im getn these speeds from Is a SATA 2 drive on a SATA1 controller.
HDD has 32mb cache.

It is unbelievably fast localy, on windows 2008 i copied a file from the drive to the drive it peaked at 96Mb and settled around 66m.

From drive to another drive peaks at 120mb and drops to more or less same speed.

Just over network even gigabit its pathetic...

Thank you for -m switch, will look into it to see if i can set it to 0%
damn it i want my space!!!
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
TerryP's Avatar
TerryP TerryP is offline
Arp Constable
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,547
Thanked 112 Times in 104 Posts
Default

space is cheap
__________________
My Journal

Thou shalt check the array bounds of all strings (indeed, all arrays), for surely where thou typest ``foo'' someone someday shall type ``supercalifragilisticexpialidocious''.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Smile Space

Depends how much, and if you have the dosh.

Besides, don't see point in wasting it.

Ive saved 100G already and only done that to a few of my storage drives!

ThankX Guys!

I might now decide to settle with UFS2 with that option!

Just wish i could sort out my LAN speed issue now!
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
ephemera's Avatar
ephemera ephemera is offline
Knuth's homeboy
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 537
Thanked 49 Times in 43 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thavinci View Post
Thank you for -m switch, will look into it to see if i can set it to 0%
if you set it to 0% and your disk usage is much higher than 92% (100-8) you can kiss performance goodbye.
Reply With Quote
Old 28th May 2008
thavinci thavinci is offline
Real Name: Marcel Grandemange
Port Guard
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Port-Elizabeth
Posts: 30
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default NTFS

Then how do other file systems deal with this issue?
Ie ntfs allows you to utilize almost the entire disk...


i do understand it will decrease performance , but currently im only getn 12m or max 20m over network anyways. Can it get worse than this?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Brief History of the BSD Fast Filesystem, Kirk McKusick ai-danno Off-Topic 0 9th March 2009 05:59 AM
Mount filesystem with a regular user ivanatora FreeBSD General 15 30th July 2008 08:51 AM
dvd filesystem type chill FreeBSD General 6 17th June 2008 08:22 AM
acessing the root filesystem kernel module! rayden FreeBSD General 1 11th June 2008 06:48 PM
Filesystem read errors Foon FreeBSD General 0 10th May 2008 07:27 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2007-2010, the authors
Daemon image copyright ©1988, Marshall Kirk McKusick