From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:43:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.168.28]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m1JMh7oE017860 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:43:09 -0800 Received: from mail2.syneticon.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 38E7EE6A2B2 for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:43:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail2.syneticon.net (mail.syneticon.net [213.239.212.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id g5wNwqdo5k7EFKWU for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:43:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47BB5B8D.2060500@wpkg.org> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:43:25 +0100 From: Tomasz Chmielewski MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: is xfs good if I have millions of files and thousands of hardlinks? References: <47BADF75.2070004@wpkg.org> <47BB5873.6040703@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <47BB5873.6040703@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: markgw@sgi.com Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Mark Goodwin schrieb: > defragmenting by copying from the ext3 filesystem to a new filesystem > should help, for a while at least. Whether xfs would have an on-going > performance problem compared to ext3 depends on your usage patterns .. > does "all the time" mean you are continuously adding new files and links > and removing files at a high rate/second? Are multiple threads doing this? Yes. Multiple threads adding new files (or hardlinks, if there are such files already) all the time (24h/day). Normally, there is only one thread removing the files. Because of this performance problem I described, it also does its job 24h/day - it just can't finish removing the unneeded files in a couple of hours, not to say one day. > Are all the files the same size? Block-size been tuned? No, file sizes are mostly random stuff you will normally find on any rootfs, home, etc. directory. It's a backup system which uses hardlinks so that files which are already in backup do not take additional place. I didn't do any block-size tuning, as I don't really know where to bite. -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org