Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mar 14, 2005 21:37 -0700, jmerkey wrote:
> > 1. Scaling issues with readdir() with huge numbers of files (not even
> > huge really. 87000 files in a dir takes a while
> > for readdir() to return results). I average 2-3 million files per
> >
Andreas Dilger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mar 14, 2005 21:37 -0700, jmerkey wrote:
1. Scaling issues with readdir() with huge numbers of files (not even
huge really. 87000 files in a dir takes a while
for readdir() to return results). I average 2-3 million files per
directory on
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:41:37AM -0500, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > What about the "LBD" patches - what limits are involved there, and have
> > they been rolled into a Linus kernel, or one or more vendor kernels?
>
> These are part of stock 2.6 kernels. The caveat here is that there have
> been
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:41:37AM -0500, Andreas Dilger wrote:
What about the LBD patches - what limits are involved there, and have
they been rolled into a Linus kernel, or one or more vendor kernels?
These are part of stock 2.6 kernels. The caveat here is that there have
been some
On Mar 14, 2005 21:37 -0700, jmerkey wrote:
> 1. Scaling issues with readdir() with huge numbers of files (not even
> huge really. 87000 files in a dir takes a while
> for readdir() to return results). I average 2-3 million files per
> directory on 2.6.9. It can take a up to a minute for
>
Andrew Morton wrote:
jmerkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
>anything if we aren't told about it?
>
>
>
I report them when I can't get around them myself. I've been able to get
around most of them.
Jeff, that's all take and
jmerkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
> >anything if we aren't told about it?
> >
> >
> >
> I report them when I can't get around them myself. I've been able to get
> around most of them.
Jeff, that's all take and no
Andrew Morton wrote:
jmerkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I am running the DSFS file system as a 7 TB file system on 2.6.9.
On a 32-bit CPU?
Yep.
There are a host of problems with the current VFS,
I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
anything if we
jmerkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am running the DSFS file system as a 7 TB file system on 2.6.9.
On a 32-bit CPU?
> There are a host of problems with the current VFS,
I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
anything if we aren't told about it?
> ad I have
I am running the DSFS file system as a 7 TB file system on 2.6.9. There
are a host
of problems with the current VFS, ad I have gotten around most of them
by **NOT** using the linux page cache interface. The VFS I am using
creates a virtual represeation of the files and it's own cache. You need
On Mar 09, 2005 10:53 -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> The group I work in has been experimenting with GFS and Lustre, and I did
> some NBD/ENBD experimentation on my own, described at
> http://dcs.nac.uci.edu/~strombrg/nbd.html
>
> My question is, what is the current status of h
On Mar 09, 2005 10:53 -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
The group I work in has been experimenting with GFS and Lustre, and I did
some NBD/ENBD experimentation on my own, described at
http://dcs.nac.uci.edu/~strombrg/nbd.html
My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE
I am running the DSFS file system as a 7 TB file system on 2.6.9. There
are a host
of problems with the current VFS, ad I have gotten around most of them
by **NOT** using the linux page cache interface. The VFS I am using
creates a virtual represeation of the files and it's own cache. You need
jmerkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running the DSFS file system as a 7 TB file system on 2.6.9.
On a 32-bit CPU?
There are a host of problems with the current VFS,
I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
anything if we aren't told about it?
ad I have gotten
Andrew Morton wrote:
jmerkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am running the DSFS file system as a 7 TB file system on 2.6.9.
On a 32-bit CPU?
Yep.
There are a host of problems with the current VFS,
I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
anything if we
jmerkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
anything if we aren't told about it?
I report them when I can't get around them myself. I've been able to get
around most of them.
Jeff, that's all take and no give.
Please
Andrew Morton wrote:
jmerkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't recall you reporting any of them. How can we expect to fix
anything if we aren't told about it?
I report them when I can't get around them myself. I've been able to get
around most of them.
Jeff, that's all take and no
On Mar 14, 2005 21:37 -0700, jmerkey wrote:
1. Scaling issues with readdir() with huge numbers of files (not even
huge really. 87000 files in a dir takes a while
for readdir() to return results). I average 2-3 million files per
directory on 2.6.9. It can take a up to a minute for
readdir()
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:53:48AM -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE,
> filesystems that exceed 2 terabytes, and hopefully also exceeding 16
> terabytes?
people can and do have >2T filesystems now. some people on
> The group I work in has been experimenting with GFS and Lustre, and I did
> some NBD/ENBD experimentation on my own, described at
> http://dcs.nac.uci.edu/~strombrg/nbd.html
>
> My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE,
> filesystems that
The group I work in has been experimenting with GFS and Lustre, and I did
some NBD/ENBD experimentation on my own, described at
http://dcs.nac.uci.edu/~strombrg/nbd.html
My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE,
filesystems that exceed 2 terabytes, and hopefully also
The group I work in has been experimenting with GFS and Lustre, and I did
some NBD/ENBD experimentation on my own, described at
http://dcs.nac.uci.edu/~strombrg/nbd.html
My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE,
filesystems that exceed 2 terabytes, and hopefully also
The group I work in has been experimenting with GFS and Lustre, and I did
some NBD/ENBD experimentation on my own, described at
http://dcs.nac.uci.edu/~strombrg/nbd.html
My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE,
filesystems that exceed 2 terabytes, and hopefully
On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 10:53:48AM -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
My question is, what is the current status of huge filesystems - IE,
filesystems that exceed 2 terabytes, and hopefully also exceeding 16
terabytes?
people can and do have 2T filesystems now. some people on x86 have
hit the 16TB
24 matches
Mail list logo
