i also dont see any benefit from inlining small files:
this example is me doing a fully fledged prebuilt
gentoo system installation on a fresh HDD from
squashfs image on usb key in under 5 minutes:
with defaults (inlining small files):
# mount -o noatime,compress=lzo /dev/sda2 /mnt/point
# time
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 2:48 AM, Ahmet Inan
ai...@mathematik.uni-freiburg.de wrote:
i also dont see any benefit from inlining small files:
with defaults (inlining small files):
real4m39.253s
Data: total=10.01GB, used=9.08GB
Metadata, DUP: total=2.00GB, used=992.48MB
without inline:
i also dont see any benefit from inlining small files:
with defaults (inlining small files):
real4m39.253s
Data: total=10.01GB, used=9.08GB
Metadata, DUP: total=2.00GB, used=992.48MB
without inline:
real4m42.085s
Data: total=11.01GB, used=10.85GB
Metadata, DUP: total=1.00GB,
On 31 Oct 2012 11:48 +0100, from ai...@mathematik.uni-freiburg.de (Ahmet Inan):
i also dont see any benefit from inlining small files:
with defaults (inlining small files):
real4m39.253s
Data: total=10.01GB, used=9.08GB
Metadata, DUP: total=2.00GB, used=992.48MB
This uses 10290.40 MB
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Ahmet Inan
ai...@mathematik.uni-freiburg.de wrote:
i also dont see any benefit from inlining small files:
with defaults (inlining small files):
real4m39.253s
Data: total=10.01GB, used=9.08GB
Metadata, DUP: total=2.00GB, used=992.48MB
without inline:
with defaults (inlining small files):
real4m39.253s
Data: total=10.01GB, used=9.08GB
Metadata, DUP: total=2.00GB, used=992.48MB
This uses 10290.40 MB total, if we pad with zeroes (9.08GB plus
992.48MB).
without inline:
real4m42.085s
Data: total=11.01GB, used=10.85GB
Metadata,
On 31 Oct 2012 04:57 -0600, from cwi...@cwillu.com (cwillu):
9.08GB + 992.48MB*2 == 11.02GB
10.85GB + 518MB*2 == 11.86GB
That's nearly a GB smaller.
That, too; I missed the DUP. Not quite as pronounced as in my
calculations, then, but still a significant enough difference.
--
Michael
9.08GB + 992.48MB*2 == 11.02GB
10.85GB + 518MB*2 == 11.86GB
That's nearly a GB smaller.
That, too; I missed the DUP. Not quite as pronounced as in my
calculations, then, but still a significant enough difference.
great. now were down to 7-8%
just FYI:
ive retested with max_inline=0 but
On Wed, 31 Oct 2012 11:56:39 +
Michael Kjörling mich...@kjorling.se wrote:
On 31 Oct 2012 04:57 -0600, from cwi...@cwillu.com (cwillu):
9.08GB + 992.48MB*2 == 11.02GB
10.85GB + 518MB*2 == 11.86GB
That's nearly a GB smaller.
That, too; I missed the DUP. Not quite as pronounced
On 10/31/2012 08:18 AM, cwillu wrote:
import os
import sys
data = 1 * 1024 * 3
for x in xrange(100 * 1000):
with open('%s/%s' % (sys.argv[1], x), 'a') as f:
f.write(data)
root@repository:~$ mount -o loop ~/inline /mnt
root@repository:~$ mount -o loop,max_inline=0 ~/noninline /mnt2
On 10/31/2012 08:12 AM, David Sterba wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:47:14AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
if i have 10G small files in total, then it will consume 20G by default.
If those small
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size for
weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few small files, then there will be neither effect nor
benefit at all
If
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 6:04 AM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size
for weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few
Hi ching!
Am 30.10.2012 12:04, schrieb ching:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size for
weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few small files, then there
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the small files to large files ratio, ...). But as btrfs is designed
explicitly as a general purpose file
Hi ching!
Am 30.10.2012 12:04, schrieb ching:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size for
weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious why?
If there is only a few small files, then there
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 07:04:59PM +0800, ching wrote:
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf
size for weeks and it seems that it is fine.
Related to inlining itself, ext4 and xfs are receiving inline data
support, so it would make sense to introduce a per-file
On 10/30/2012 08:04 PM, Felix Pepinghege wrote:
Hi ching!
Am 30.10.2012 12:04, schrieb ching:
Hi all,
I am testing my btrfs root partition with max_inline=0, and 64k leaf size
for weeks and it seems that it is fine.
AFAIK btrfs inline small files into metadata by default, I am curious
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the small files to large files ratio, ...). But as btrfs is designed
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the small
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case
(e.g., the
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if
On 10/31/2012 06:16 AM, cwillu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:40 PM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to deduplication
Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be
undesirable due to
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 07:47:14AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
if i have 10G small files in total, then it will consume 20G by default.
If those small files are each 128 bytes in size, then you
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM, ching lschin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/2012 06:19 AM, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 10:14:12PM +, Hugo Mills wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 05:40:25AM +0800, ching wrote:
On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote:
If there is a lot of small
26 matches
Mail list logo
