==> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:56:22 -0400, Thomas Denier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I tend to think of anything over three million files as big, but that is > based on experience with just two cases. We have a client with a bit over > three million files that was chronically troublesome until it went through a > major hardware upgrade. We have a client with over nine million files that > remains chronically troublesome. Eugh, agreed. > You mention the pain of watching the log scroll. The 'quiet' option, which > eliminates most log output, can result in a significant performance > improvement for clients with large numbers of files. Well, it's not really taking much time writing the logs. For example, as I type this it's working on its' 7th hour of running, having processed 5.6M files I've got 160K lines in the logfile, avg ~7 loglines a second. Probably not adding to my performance problems. :) It'll probably complete processing 20M files sometime late tomorrow morning. By painful log scrolling, I mean that on sane-sized filesystems I'm accustomed to seeing a few thousand files handled every second. Instead, I'm seeing a few seconds to handle another 500. Yuck. I'm probably going to split it up: my architecture would make a 'split this filesystem up 10 ways' very neat and orderly, and I'd go from 4x5M filespaces, to 40x 500K filespaces, which I think would be much nicer. - Allen S. Rout
