| To: | Nikita Danilov <NikitaDanilov@xxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks |
| From: | Hans Reiser <reiser@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 17 Jul 2001 12:21:09 +0400 |
| Cc: | Xuan Baldauf <xuan--reiserfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Russell Coker <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, rsharpe@xxxxxxxxxx, Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, Federico Sevilla III <jijo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-list@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Organization: | Namesys |
| References: | <Pine.BSI.4.10.10107141752080.18419-100000@xs3.xs4all.nl> <3B5169E5.827BFED@namesys.com> <20010716210029.I11938@weta.f00f.org> <20010716101313.2DC3E965@lyta.coker.com.au> <3B52C49F.9FE1F503@namesys.com> <15186.51514.66966.458597@beta.namesys.com> <3B5341BA.1F68F755@baldauf.org> <15187.18225.196286.123754@beta.namesys.com> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Nikita Danilov wrote: > For each open file you have: > > struct file (96b) > struct inode (460b) > struct dentry (112b) > > at least. This totals to 668M of kernel memory, that is, unpageable. > All files are kept in several hash tables and hash-tables are known to > degrade. Well, actually, I am afraid current Linux kernels cannot open > 1e6 of files. You don't have to do things this stupidly. But even if you do, you have shown that a server that cannot handle the load from a million files receiving IO would be burdened by the overhead of keeping them open. Not sure what your point is. Hans |
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs on notebooks (noflushd etc.), Sidik Isani |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks, Hans Reiser |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks, Chris Wedgwood |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: benchmarks, Hans Reiser |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |