[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Writes to samba server very, very slow
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Writes to samba server very, very slow
- From: Nick Holland <nick_(_at_)_hc_(_dot_)_holland-consulting_(_dot_)_net>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 10:37:47 -0401
On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 02:34:04PM +0200, Michael Hamerski wrote:
> the FAQ which you refer to mentions 1M per 1G of storage, so that's not
> really 1G of RAM for this system, is it? or is there a reason I'm missing?
no...256M would in theory do it (assuming nothing bigger than around
200G in one partition, and fsck'd only one partition at a time),
assuming your only goal was bringing the system back up. I'm assuming
there is some USE for that huge disk system, that use will usually
require some RAM. 200G is freaking huge. This machine probably shipped
with an 8G disk and 128M of RAM, it got a major storage upgrade, and the
rest was untouched. That's kinda like dropping a huge engine in your
small car and assuming you have the ability to run with the pros. Not
gonna happen. 1G might be way more than needed, but 256M is really still
too tight for my comfort on a system of that size.
> I am curious as I have a number of lower-end file-serving systems with
> 200G - 500G and usually 256M RAM and have never been bit by a fsck
> slowdown, even rebuilding raidframe parity is tolerable. Granted I have
> partitions usually smaller than 50G and a system partition smaller than
> 10G in most cases. Is this the difference?
yes. The issue is, the larger the PARTITION, the more RAM it takes to
Supposedly, you can run multiple fsck's simultaniously. With multiple
disks, there would be a definite advantage to doing so...with multiple
big disks, big advantage...that moves the memory requirement up to near
512M. I don't believe RAIDframe adds a significant memory requirement
based on disk size.