From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:53:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m1IMrID5000475 for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:53:21 -0800 Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:53:35 +1100 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: tuning, many small files, small blocksize Message-ID: <20080218225335.GR155407@sgi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Jeff Breidenbach Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 09:01:10PM -0800, Jeff Breidenbach wrote: > I'm testing xfs for use in storing 100 million+ small files > (roughly 4 to 10KB each) and some directories will contain > tens of thousands of files. There will be a lot of random > reading, and also some random writing, and very little > deletion. ..... > a) Should I just go with the 512 byte blocksize or is that going to be > bad for some performance reason? Going to 1024 is no problem, > but I'd prefer not to waste 20% of the partition capacity by using 4096. I'd suggest wasting 20% of disk space and staying with 4k block size. > b) Are there any other mkfs.xfs paramters that I should play with. Large directory block size (-n size=XXX), esp. if you are putting thousands of files per directory.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group