From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sat, 24 May 2008 20:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m4P3OPFe032221 for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 20:24:26 -0700 Received: from sandeen.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 7EF8B1AE786 for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 20:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [209.173.210.139]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id yhZQABhIL4MXKHnn for ; Sat, 24 May 2008 20:25:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4838DC1A.5010206@sandeen.net> Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 22:25:14 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: XFS for lots of small files References: <4820832B.3070903@dubielvitrum.pl> (sfid-20080506_185726_779300_46423265) <200805062055.36755.Martin@lichtvoll.de> In-Reply-To: <200805062055.36755.Martin@lichtvoll.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Martin Steigerwald Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com Martin Steigerwald wrote: > And there is quite some fragmentation on it: > > xfs_db> frag > actual 653519, ideal 587066, fragmentation factor 10.17% No, there's not. You have 653519 extents out of an "ideal" 587066. That is 653519/587066 = 1.113 extents per file. It is not "quite some" fragmentation, it is near perfect (although this is subjective, and also depends on the size of your files... if they are all 8k then 1.113 extents per file might be a bit high; if they average 1G then 1.113 extents on average is pretty darned good.) -Eric