xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: altering defaults

To: prad <prad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: altering defaults
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 05 Jun 2011 22:47:44 -0500
Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <8762onaq19.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <8762onaq19.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 6/3/11 10:33 AM, prad wrote:
> i'm new to xfs (courtesy of most helpful and encouraging commentary by
> stan hoeppner!) and i've seen some advice which says to make the 
> block size     -> 512
> directory size -> 4096
> 
> on the other hand, i've also come across webpages which say don't mess
> around! keep the defaults as they are unless you are absolutely sure
> that changing it suits your purpose and know why.

Yup.  See "Q: I want to tune my XFS filesystems for <something> "
http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_I_want_to_tune_my_XFS_filesystems_for_.3Csomething.3E

> my question is for the data storage area on a web/email server. we're
> mainly going to have small files there and the email part will have only
> temporary files for the most part since people will download (ie pop).
> 
> it makes sense to make the block size = 512, but i wonder if it really
> matters noticeably. the server is not a heavily visited one and only on
> very rare occasions will we get around 50000 hits/day - most of the time
> we're looking at under 10000 and that is with all the domains combined.

If space efficiency is a consideration then smaller blocksizes might
be useful.  Not so much for hits per day, but for how many files you expect
to store at any one time; you'll waste ((blocksize / 2) * nr files) on average.

-Eric

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>