* Hardlinks-per-directory limit?
@ 2010-07-29 4:35 Ken D'Ambrosio
2010-07-29 13:50 ` Josef Bacik
2010-08-01 17:43 ` David Brown
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Ken D'Ambrosio @ 2010-07-29 4:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Hello, all. I'm thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and -- based
on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks
(http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23)
-- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall that
there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and BackupPC
*loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me what the issue
was, or reassure me that it's been rectified?
Thanks!
-Ken
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Hardlinks-per-directory limit?
2010-07-29 4:35 Hardlinks-per-directory limit? Ken D'Ambrosio
@ 2010-07-29 13:50 ` Josef Bacik
2010-08-01 17:43 ` David Brown
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Josef Bacik @ 2010-07-29 13:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken D'Ambrosio; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:35:59AM -0400, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> Hello, all. I'm thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and -- based
> on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks
> (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23)
> -- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall that
> there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and BackupPC
> *loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me what the issue
> was, or reassure me that it's been rectified?
>
It's because we pack inode ref's into the same item, so once the item fills up
we can't add anymore refs. It's still a problem, not sure if/when its getting
fixed. Thanks,
Josef
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Hardlinks-per-directory limit?
2010-07-29 4:35 Hardlinks-per-directory limit? Ken D'Ambrosio
2010-07-29 13:50 ` Josef Bacik
@ 2010-08-01 17:43 ` David Brown
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Brown @ 2010-08-01 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ken D'Ambrosio; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Wednesday 28 July 2010, Ken D'Ambrosio said:
> Hello, all. I'm thinking of rolling out a BackupPC server, and --
> based on the strength of the recent Phoronix benchmarks
> (http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11156&Itemid=23)
> -- had been strongly considering btrfs. But I do seem to recall
> that there was some sort of hardlinks-per-directory limitation, and
> BackupPC *loves* hardlinks. Would someone care to either remind me
> what the issue was, or reassure me that it's been rectified?
btrfs has a limit on the number of hardlinks that can exist in the
same directory. I don't believe that BackupPC will create any more
hardlinks in a given directory than are already in the filesystem you
are backing up. It uses hardlinks between directories for files that
haven't changed.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-08-01 17:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-07-29 4:35 Hardlinks-per-directory limit? Ken D'Ambrosio
2010-07-29 13:50 ` Josef Bacik
2010-08-01 17:43 ` David Brown
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).