xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Performance of near-full filesystems

To: Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Performance of near-full filesystems
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001 11:35:00 -0500
Cc: Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Comments: In-reply-to Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> message dated "Sun, 22 Jul 2001 23:19:12 +0800."
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107222316290.6419-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2001 at 08:03, Steve Lord wrote:
> > If you create a large number of files in XFS, inodes are allocated
> > dynamically for them. If you remove all the files, the inodes are not
> > returned to free space. On something like ext2 inodes are allocated at
> > mkfs time and the space is never available for anything else. This I
> > think is what you were referring to.
> 
> Yes, this is what I was referring to. I was under the impression that this
> was "bad", though, and one effectively "lost space". Are inodes allocated
> dynamically for large files different from those allocated dynamically for
> a bunch of small files? Meaning, if inodes are allocated for a large file,
> then the large file is deleted, and the inodes are not returned to free
> space, will filling up these allocated inodes with small files be "bad" or
> would filling up the free space with small files (thus creating inodes for
> them) have had the same effect anyway?

There is no distinction in XFS, an inode is an inode, no matter what it
is used for, they are all the same size (default 256 bytes on disk) and
they are allocated in groups of 32 by default (2 filesystem blocks worth).

Steve


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>