xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: stable xfs

To: Linux XFS <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: stable xfs
From: pg_xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Grandi)
Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:09:40 +0100
In-reply-to: <1153413481.2768.65.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1153150223.4532.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17595.47312.720883.451573@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153262166.2669.267.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17597.27469.834961.186850@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153272044.2669.282.camel@localhost.localdomain> <17598.2129.999932.67127@base.ty.sabi.co.UK> <1153314670.2691.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060720061527.GB18135@tuatara.stupidest.org> <1153404502.2768.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060720161707.GB26748@tuatara.stupidest.org> <1153413481.2768.65.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:38:01 -0400, Ming Zhang
>>> <mingz@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:

[ ... ]

>>> we mainly handle large media files like 20-50GB. so file
>>> number is not too much. but file size is large.

>> xfs_repair usually deals with that fairly well in reality
>> (much better than lots of small files anyhow)

> sounds cool. yes, large # of small files are always painful.

It is not just number of inodes, it is also number of
extents. That is total number of metadata items.

[ ... ]


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