Heinz Sporn wrote:
Hi!
Reading all the posts to your question I found it rather strange that no
one seems to be interessted in some basic facts:
1. How will this kind of file server being used? What is its main
purpose?
2. How many users are we talking here?
3. What are the most important operation
Hi!
Reading all the posts to your question I found it rather strange that no
one seems to be interessted in some basic facts:
1. How will this kind of file server being used? What is its main
purpose?
2. How many users are we talking here?
3. What are the most important operations you'll expect?
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 11:21:11AM -0800, David Busby wrote:
> I don't want this to turn into one of those ext3 vs xfs
> conversations.
It kind of turned into a "filesystem versus database"
conversation!
> I want to know which filesystem is a better choice for having lots
> (>4billion) director
> A database would not work because I wouldn't be able to
> #1 make this easy tree structure to scan
If it 'works' as a directory, it is therefore hierarchical in nature and can
be structured in a database.
> #2 it will be smaller storage wise in files and in a DB
> with all that overhead
It
> David Busby ha scritto:
> > A database would not work because I wouldn't be able to #1 make
> > this easy tree structure to scan
It will -read SQL for Smarties. It describes easy structure to pack
trees in and seriously - I've tried it - it works perfect with
PostgreSQL (as it provides trigger
On Thu, 2005-02-10 at 11:21 -0800, David Busby wrote:
> I don't want this to turn into one of those ext3 vs xfs conversations.
>
> I want to know which filesystem is a better choice for having lots
> (>4billion) directories. The dirs will be in tree format, so at the
> root will be 256 dirs, ea
Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote:
#1
I've never used them but this seem a problem that can be solved by
ldap databases,
Anyway I've implemented for my website a tree structure for users,
based on traditional SQL databases (MySQL).
It uses a varchar to simulate the tree, now it's used for only few
tho
David Busby wrote:
You should watch what you say. I know this will abuse the system,
which will it abuse the least?
A database would not work because I wouldn't be able to #1 make this
easy tree structure to scan #2 it will be smaller storage wise in
files and in a DB with all that overhead #3
David Busby ha scritto:
Dave Nebinger wrote:
Search for "unmaintainable ridiculous software architecture" and you'll
probably find a match to your product.
It doesn't matter what filesystem you choose as this architecture is
going
to abuse them significantly.
As an application developer I would n
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:21:11 -0800, David Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't want this to turn into one of those ext3 vs xfs conversations.
>
> I want to know which filesystem is a better choice for having lots
> (>4billion) directories. The dirs will be in tree format, so at the
> root w
C'mooon
Let the user smack his/her head in the wall the way he/she want's to. Just
pont out a nice hard-and-pointy brick :)
IMHO for a structure like this nothing but custom tailored data management
won't help - so back to theory books :)
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Building a byte-wise Trie for fixed-length strings on a filesystem?
BTW, if you have one layer that ~256 directories. If you have 2 layers
that's ~(256 x 256) directories. So, with 8 layers that's roughly (256 ^
8) = 2^8 ^ 8 = 2^64 ~= 16 quintillion (billion billio
David Busby wrote:
Kashani wrote:
ReiserFS does deal with billions of tiny files better than almost
all other file systems. You're going to run into inode issues with
ext3 as well. However what you're doing sounds like it belongs in a
database instead of creating weird data structures within
On Thursday 10 February 2005 01:21 pm, David Busby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I don't want this to turn into one of those ext3 vs xfs conversations.
>
> I want to know which filesystem is a better choice for having lots
> (>4billion) directories. The dirs will be in tree format, so at the
> roo
> > ReiserFS does deal with billions of tiny files better than almost
> > all other file systems. You're going to run into inode issues with ext3
> > as well. However what you're doing sounds like it belongs in a database
> > instead of creating weird data structures within your filesystem.
> >
Dave Nebinger wrote:
Search for "unmaintainable ridiculous software architecture" and you'll
probably find a match to your product.
It doesn't matter what filesystem you choose as this architecture is going
to abuse them significantly.
As an application developer I would never create software that
Kashani wrote:
ReiserFS does deal with billions of tiny files better than almost
all other file systems. You're going to run into inode issues with ext3
as well. However what you're doing sounds like it belongs in a database
instead of creating weird data structures within your filesystem.
David Busby wrote:
I don't want this to turn into one of those ext3 vs xfs conversations.
I want to know which filesystem is a better choice for having lots
(>4billion) directories. The dirs will be in tree format, so at the
root will be 256 dirs, each with 256 sub-dirs, each with 256 sub-dirs.
> I want to know which filesystem is a better choice for having lots
> (>4billion) directories. The dirs will be in tree format, so at the
> root will be 256 dirs, each with 256 sub-dirs, each with 256 sub-dirs.
> This will go on for 8 to 12 levels deep (I don't know yet) Then each
> dir will hav
19 matches
Mail list logo
