Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize

[pg_xfs2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:01:10 -0800, "Jeff Breidenbach"
>>> <jeff@xxxxxxx> said:

jeff> I'm testing xfs for use in storing 100 million+ small
jeff> files (roughly 4 to 10KB each) and some directories will
jeff> contain tens of thousands of files. There will be a lot of
jeff> random reading, and also some random writing, and very
jeff> little deletion. The underlying disks use linux software
jeff> RAID-1 manged by mdadm with 5X redundancy. E.g. 5 drives
jeff> that completely mirror each other.

Reading this was quite entertaining :-).

jeff> [ ... ] The general consensus was xfs does pretty good
jeff> tuning itself, but almost none of the published benchmarks
jeff> or recommendation go with small blocksizes and I want to
jeff> make sure I'm not about to do something totally stupid. [
jeff> ... ]

Makes me wonder why silly people come up with pointless stuff
like this :-)

  http://WWW.Oracle.com/database/berkeley-db.html