From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46]:48643 "EHLO mail-pa0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934731Ab2J3Vk2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:40:28 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id hz1so457535pad.19 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50904949.8010603@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 05:40:25 +0800 From: ching MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cwillu CC: Felix Pepinghege , "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Why btrfs inline small file by default? References: <508FB45B.9040101@gmail.com> <508FC26A.1010206@pepinghege.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/30/2012 08:17 PM, cwillu wrote: >>> If there is a lot of small files, then the size of metadata will be >>> undesirable due to deduplication >> >> Yes, that is a fact, but if that really matters depends on the use-case >> (e.g., the small files to large files ratio, ...). But as btrfs is designed >> explicitly as a general purpose file system, you usually want the good >> performance instead of the better disk-usage (especially as disk space isn't >> expensive anymore). > As I understand it, in basically all cases the total storage used by > inlining will be _smaller_, as the allocation doesn't need to be > aligned to the sector size. > if i have 10G small files in total, then it will consume 20G by default. ching