Raaf, Dennis,
I've taken pmp->pm_Heads out my branch, but it's not ready for a commit.
Raaf, if you could give me a hexdump of the bootsector, I'd appreciate
it. `hexdump -Cn1024 /dev/...` should do.
Thanks,
Brian
On 7/1/07, Raaf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brian Chu wrote:
> Raaf,
>
> What's
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 05:54:58PM -0400, Brian Chu wrote:
> Raaf,
>
> What's the size of the memory stick? Is it 32MB like Dennis has?
>
> The check for the field that affected you isn't critical to msdosfs'
> operation, but the field itself is specified to be non-zero.
> Konstantin, is it alri
Raaf,
What's the size of the memory stick? Is it 32MB like Dennis has?
The check for the field that affected you isn't critical to msdosfs'
operation, but the field itself is specified to be non-zero.
Konstantin, is it alright to remove this field?
Brian
On 7/1/07, Dennis Melentyev <[EMAIL PR
On 7/2/07, Nikolay Pavlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 14:11:19 +0400, Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
> files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
> this kind of sy
Brian Chu wrote:
Raaf,
What's the size of the memory stick? Is it 32MB like Dennis has?
It's a 64MB memory stick using FAT12.
The check for the field that affected you isn't critical to msdosfs'
operation, but the field itself is specified to be non-zero.
Konstantin, is it alright to remov
On Wednesday, 27 June 2007 at 14:11:19 +0400, Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
> files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
> this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. Thi
Well, had the same problem.
For me, it looks like SE is using FAT12 (!!!Not 16!!!) on a devive
larger than 32MB. Could have something slipped off my mind, but quite
close. It is a BROKEN msdosfs on a stick.
Just re-formated 1Gb flash with FAT32 using card reader and both K750i
and FreeBSD are hap
Hi, i got a Sony Ericsson mobile phone that came with a pre-formatted
memory stick that i'm unable to mount in FreeBSD (it mounts fine in
Linux).
After investigating i found out that the FreeBSD msdsofs driver bails
out on the following code (the pmp->pm_Heads being zero):
--
> snapshot of a partition, in order to perform a background-fsck and
> thus our website was down. So ufs2 does not scale well.
Reasons not related to the nfs-server itself. FreeBSD itself was
rock-solid. It was firmware-related on the storage-side.
i always use software mirror concat or both in
> Try zfs on amd64 unless your app doesn't work well with zfs or your
does zfs have RELIABLE and USABLE software allowing to efficiently backup
large filesystems to other media? (DVD's, tapes, other hard discs)
Zfs has send/receive where you can do snapshots and send them to a
different host. T
> approx. 15 partitions ranging from 400 GB to 2 TB in size. If the
> server for some reason had crashed the webservers were unable to
the question is about the reason it crashed...
> access the nfs-mounted partitions during the period the server did a
> snapshot of a partition, in order to per
Thank you very much.
Try zfs on amd64 unless your app doesn't work well with zfs or your
does zfs have RELIABLE and USABLE software allowing to efficiently backup
large filesystems to other media? (DVD's, tapes, other hard discs)
___
freebsd-stable
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is more effective IMHO.
I'd be happy if a
I have tried using a 4K/0.5K UFS1 filesystem in the past and found the
performance was very poor. UFS2 was based on 16K/2K and I would expect
it to perform even worse with 4K/0.5K. I would suggest you try 8K/1K.
not for small files. you are light with large files but it's not THAT bad
as you
approx. 15 partitions ranging from 400 GB to 2 TB in size. If the
server for some reason had crashed the webservers were unable to
the question is about the reason it crashed...
access the nfs-mounted partitions during the period the server did a
snapshot of a partition, in order to perform a
Nguyen Tam Chinh wrote:
Greetings,
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is mo
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:19:03AM +0200, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
> On Wed, 27.06.2007 at 08:12:06 +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> > Unfortunately I can't check the drives with smartctl; they produce an SCSI
> > error. I'll try 'camcontrol defects', and see if that turns up anything.
>
> Please try w
On Wed, 27.06.2007 at 08:12:06 +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
> Unfortunately I can't check the drives with smartctl; they produce an SCSI
> error. I'll try 'camcontrol defects', and see if that turns up anything.
Please try with atausb. Remove umass/da/scsi from your kernel and add
atausb. Might be w
We're going to build a server with some 1Tb of over 500 million small
files with size from 0,5k to 4k. I'm wonder if the ufs2 can handle
this kind of system well. From newfs(8) the min block size is 4k. This
is not optimal in our case, a 1k or 0,5k block is more effective IMHO.
I'd be happy if an
19 matches
Mail list logo
