Re: xattr performance

Christian Kujau
2013-05-17T20:09:39Z

On Fri, 17 May 2013 at 10:44, Ben Myers wrote:
> The short version:
> inode core (96 bytes) + literal area == inode size

Ah, yes indeed. I had another issue earlier on the same filesystem and
Christoph told me[0] that I may have run out of inode attributes.

xfs_info reports isize=256 for this filesystem and now that I'm using
xattr even more (I'm storing sha256 checksum plus the filename in each
file's xattr) this looks like it might exceed the literal area after all.

> Anyway... If you're a heavy user of EAs you might benefit from using larger
> inodes. Just something to consider. Cool tests! ;)

Yeah, next time I'll have to take this into consideration, but the fs was
created long ago and I didn't plan to use xattr. Now I do but mkfs is not
an option right now.

Thanks for the insight,
Christian.

[0] http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2012-07/msg00116.html
--
BOFH excuse #247:

Due to Federal Budget problems we have been forced to cut back on the number of users able to access the system at one time. (namely none allowed....)