Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:37:46 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0-r574664 (2007-09-11) on oss.sgi.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.0-r574664 Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m1GCbd5b024624 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:37:41 -0800 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1203165483-07d903710000-ps1ADW X-Barracuda-URL: http://cuda.sgi.com:80/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from ty.sabi.co.UK (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id B82E9E381F9 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ty.sabi.co.UK (82-69-39-138.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.39.138]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id GZu7P0V7fNwApF8O for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 04:38:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from from [127.0.0.1] (helo=tree.ty.sabi.co.UK) by ty.sabi.co.UK with esmtp(Exim 4.66 #1) id 1JQM4L-0004Uy-Ms for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:23:01 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18358.54692.381632.107791@tree.ty.sabi.co.UK> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:23:00 +0000 X-Face: SMJE]JPYVBO-9UR%/8d'mG.F!@.,l@c[f'[%S8'BZIcbQc3/">GrXDwb#;fTRGNmHr^JFb SAptvwWc,0+z+~p~"Gdr4H$(|N(yF(wwCM2bW0~U?HPEE^fkPGx^u[*[yV.gyB!hDOli}EF[\cW*S H&spRGFL}{`bj1TaD^l/"[ msn( /TH#THs{Hpj>)]f> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize Subject: Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.5 (beta28) XEmacs Lucid From: pg_xfs2@xfs2.for.sabi.co.UK X-Disclaimer: This message contains only personal opinions X-Barracuda-Connect: 82-69-39-138.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk[82.69.39.138] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1203165484 X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -2.0210 X-Barracuda-Virus-Scanned: by cuda.sgi.com at sgi.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -1.25 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-1.25 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=2.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=3.0 tests=FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS, NO_REAL_NAME X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.1, rules version 3.1.42334 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.55 NO_REAL_NAME From: does not include a real name 0.22 FROM_HAS_ULINE_NUMS From: contains an underline and numbers/letters X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.91.2/5833/Fri Feb 15 11:30:30 2008 on oss.sgi.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-archive-position: 14471 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com X-original-sender: pg_xfs2@xfs2.for.sabi.co.UK Precedence: bulk X-list: xfs >>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:01:10 -0800, "Jeff Breidenbach" >>> 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