On 07/05/12 20:06, Boyd Waters wrote:
Use a directory hierarchy. Even if the filesystem handles a
flat structure effectively, userspace programs will choke on
tens of thousands of files in a single directory. For example
'ls' will try to lexically sort its output (very slowly) unless
given
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small
files (512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario.
Keep in mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some
On 07/05/12 12:05, viv...@gmail.com wrote:
Il 07/05/2012 11:28, Alessio Focardi ha scritto:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of
small files (512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in
this scenario. Keep in mind that I never worked with btrfs - I
On 08/05/12 13:31, Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
A few people have already mentioned how btrfs will pack these small
files into metadata blocks. If you're running btrfs on a single disk,
[...]
But the cost is increased CPU usage. Btrfs hits memmove and memcpy
pretty hard when you're using
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:51:05PM +0100, Martin wrote:
On 08/05/12 13:31, Chris Mason wrote:
[...]
A few people have already mentioned how btrfs will pack these small
files into metadata blocks. If you're running btrfs on a single disk,
[...]
But the cost is increased CPU usage.
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small files
(512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario. Keep in
mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some documentation and
browsed this mailing list - so forgive me if my questions
On Monday 07 of May 2012 11:28:13 Alessio Focardi wrote:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small
files (512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this
scenario. Keep in mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some
documentation and
Use a directory hierarchy. Even if the filesystem handles a flat structure
effectively, userspace programs will choke on tens of thousands of files in a
single directory. For example 'ls' will try to lexically sort its output (very
slowly) unless given the command-line option not to do so.
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small
files (512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario.
Keep in mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some
Il 07/05/2012 11:28, Alessio Focardi ha scritto:
Hi,
I need some help in designing a storage structure for 1 billion of small files
(512 Bytes), and I was wondering how btrfs will fit in this scenario. Keep in
mind that I never worked with btrfs - I just read some documentation and browsed
This is a lot more compact (as you can have several files' data in a
single block), but by default will write two copies of each file,
even
on a single disk.
Great, no (or less) space wasted, then! I will have a filesystem that's
composed mostly of metadata blocks, if I understand correctly.
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
This is a lot more compact (as you can have several files' data in a
single block), but by default will write two copies of each file,
even
on a single disk.
Great, no (or less) space wasted, then!
Less space wasted --
Am Mon, 7 May 2012 12:39:28 +0100
schrieb Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk:
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
...
That's a very clever suggestion, I'm preparing a test server right
now: going to use the -m single option. Any other suggestion
regarding format
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:28:13AM +0200, Alessio Focardi wrote:
I tough about compression, but is not clear to me the compression is
handled at the file level or at the block level.
I don't recommend using compression for your expected file size range.
Unless the files are highly compressible
14 matches
Mail list logo
