SUMMARY:UFS logging dark sides ?

From: Osama Ahmed <>
Date: Sat Jan 19 2002 - 15:57:51 EST
My original post is below.
Thanks goes to these people:
Sean Quaint 
Thomas Anders 
system administration account []
Jay Lessert
Ed Rolison
David Foster
Darren Dunham
Kevin Buterbaugh
In general it is recommended to apply logging to every filesystem on the
server to enhance stability and recoverability.
Performance issues:
 - Make sure you have lots of CPU horsepower if your file system
requires heavy amount of writes. Quote Sean Quaint
 - logging always introduce a performance degradation at very high
throughputs. Quote Darren Dunham
 - it imposes additional overhead on file metadata operations-If the
filesystem contains a lot of files then better use logging in
conjunction with "noatime" mount option.Quote Sys admin!
Dark Side: 
 - if you completely fill your filesystem, so it can't write the log,
then things go horribly wrong. Quote Ed Rolison
My server's filesystem is just used to export files to other machines
-no heavy amounts of writes- so I will go for logging.
Osama Ahmed
-----Original Message-----
From: Osama Ahmed [] 
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 12:53 PM
To: ''
Subject: UFS logging dark sides ?

E3500, Solaris 8 , latest patches, MetaStor Disk arrays
The server mounts a large file system from the disk array (200GB- HW
RAID 5) . The file system contains a  large number of files (20+ million
inode).  We are in the process of applying ufs logging to this
production server so as to speed up fsck and various file operations.
Do any one of you used this feature in a production environment ? Any
performance issues(This file system is exported to other machines) ? Any
dark sides of ufs logging ?
I will sure appreciate your help.
Osama Ahmed
sunmanagers mailing list
Received on Sat Jan 19 14:59:16 2002

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:42:32 EST