On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgr...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Sascha Thomas Spreitzer wrote: > >> Hello again, >> >> this line looks suspicious to me: >> >> # name <active_objs> <num_objs> <objsize> <objperslab> >> <pagesperslab> : tunables <limit> <batchcount> <sharedfactor> : >> slabdata <active_slabs> <num_slabs> <sharedavail> >> ext3_inode_cache 98472 150260 760 5 1 : tunables 54 27 >> 8 : slabdata 30052 30052 189 >> >> Is it 1 big filesystem with about 1,342,177,280 inodes. Has this >> amount ever be tested in the wild? > > Not sure if it has been tested in the wild or not but the filesystem > itself contains a _TON_ of hardlinks. Creation of hardlinks is one of the > big purposes of this filesystem. >
Well then my idea of making smaller filesystems would break that then... hmmm I would say that its time to escalate this to Level 2 support :). What do the filesystem kernel people think? I would bring them in to see if there is something we are missing. Maybe something in the dealing with that many inodes per file is causing a problem (or maybe this is just known behaviour for large filesystems.) By the way, this is a 64 bit OS correct? -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
