CNFS buffers bigger than 2 GB under Linux ?

dsr+inn at dsr+inn at
Mon Mar 18 20:47:38 UTC 2002

Russ Allbery <rra at> writes:
> Antoine Delvaux <antoine.delvaux at> writes:
> >> Well, you can just use large disk files.
> > Yes, but this will slow down innd I think, no ?  That's why I wanted to
> > use raw devices.
> It may slow it down a bit, but we've not run bechmarks.  I doubt it will
> be particularly noticeable.

I haven't benchmarked, but my guess would be that there should be very
little slowdown with an extent based file system (e.g.  SGI's xfs or
Veritas VxFS).  ufs with the default parameters probably is not well
suited to one large file--in particular, I would expect the limits on
the fraction of a cylinder group a file can allocate to lead to very
poor layout of a single CNFS file the size of the filesystem, so some
filesystem tuning would probably be needed to get decent performance
from ufs.  What this means for ext2fs I don't know--the "Design and
Implimentation"[1] paper doesn't say anything about ext2fs's
allocation policy within a block group, and mke2fs doesn't offer much
in the way of tuning options.  It does look like ext2fs has
traditional ufs inodes, so it will have the "double indirect inode"
problem with large files; a large block size might help (this should
mostly be a problem for random access (nnrpd), not sequential access
(innd), if Linux has a halfway decent inode cache).  I know even
less about other Linux file systems...

> INN imposes no limitations; the limitation is in the kernel.  It's a
> common limitation; I don't know of any operating system at present that
> supports memory mapping raw devices over 2GB.  (Tru64, probably, if it
> supports mmap on raw devices at all, but I'm not sure it does.)

I couldn't get it to mmap raw devices at all--we ended up with large
files on AdvFS (an extent based filesystem).



More information about the inn-workers mailing list