From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay01.ispgateway.de ([80.67.18.13]:33961 "EHLO smtprelay01.ispgateway.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757036Ab2K3OEA (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:04:00 -0500 Received: from [84.145.132.19] (helo=hermione.invalid) by smtprelay01.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1TeR5V-0006a0-CM for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:57:05 +0100 Received: from berberic by hermione.invalid with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1TeR5U-0004S3-AZ for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:57:04 +0100 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:57:04 +0100 From: M G Berberich To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Performance with lots of small files Message-ID: <20121130135704.GF19186@invalid> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, how would btrfs perform with 200M files on a 3TByte-disk with up to 18K files in a directory? Ext4 performs very, very poor, would btrfs do better? MfG bmg -- „Des is völlig wurscht, was heut beschlos- | M G Berberich sen wird: I bin sowieso dagegn!“ | berberic@fmi.uni-passau.de (SPD-Stadtrat Kurt Schindler; Regensburg) | www.fmi.uni-passau.de/~berberic