| To: | Peter Grandi <pg_xf2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize |
| From: | Hannes Dorbath <light@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 19 Feb 2008 12:44:57 +0100 |
| Cc: | Linux XFS <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <18362.37642.577718.529415@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> |
| References: | <e03b90ae0802152101t2bfa4644kcca5d6329239f9ff@mail.gmail.com> <47BA10EC.3090004@tlinx.org> <20080218235103.GW155407@sgi.com> <47BA2AFD.2060409@tlinx.org> <20080219024924.GB155407@sgi.com> <e03b90ae0802182058h7a1535c6w749eb46cbe434ef2@mail.gmail.com> <18362.37642.577718.529415@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> |
| Sender: | xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031) |
That sounds like a good use for a LDAP database, but using Berkeley DB directly may be best. One could also do a FUSE module or a special purpose NFS server that presents a Berkeley DB as a filesystem, but then we would be getting rather close to ReiserFS. During testing of HA clusters some time ago I found BDB to always be the first thing to break. It seems to have very poor recovery and seems not fine with neither file systems snapshots nor power failures. Nevertheless it's claimed ACID conform. I don't know -- from my experience I wouldn't even put my address book on it. Personally I ended up doing this for OpenLDAP and never looked back: http://www.samse.fr/GPL/ldap_pg/HOWTO/x12.html
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize, Peter Grandi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | is xfs good if I have millions of files and thousands of hardlinks?, Tomasz Chmielewski |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize, Peter Grandi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize, Peter Grandi |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |