xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: is xfs good if I have millions of files and thousands of hardlinks?

To: markgw@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: is xfs good if I have millions of files and thousands of hardlinks?
From: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:43:25 +0100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <47BB5873.6040703@sgi.com>
References: <47BADF75.2070004@wpkg.org> <47BB5873.6040703@sgi.com>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.8) Gecko/20061110 Mandriva/1.5.0.8-1mdv2007.1 (2007.1) Thunderbird/1.5.0.8 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
Mark Goodwin schrieb:

defragmenting by copying from the ext3 filesystem to a new filesystem
should help, for a while at least. Whether xfs would have an on-going
performance problem compared to ext3 depends on your usage patterns ..
does "all the time" mean you are continuously adding new files and links
and removing files at a high rate/second? Are multiple threads doing this?

Yes. Multiple threads adding new files (or hardlinks, if there are such files already) all the time (24h/day).
Normally, there is only one thread removing the files. Because of this performance problem I described, it also does its job 24h/day - it just can't finish removing the unneeded files in a couple of hours, not to say one day.



Are all the files the same size? Block-size been tuned?

No, file sizes are mostly random stuff you will normally find on any rootfs, home, etc. directory.
It's a backup system which uses hardlinks so that files which are already in backup do not take additional place.


I didn't do any block-size tuning, as I don't really know where to bite.


-- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org


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