From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q5CHbCa7015227 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:37:12 -0500 Received: from Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org (ishtar.tlinx.org [173.164.175.65]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id iFpPpJe5FZk4nMiU (version=TLSv1 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.12] (Athenae [192.168.3.12]) by Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org (8.14.5/8.14.4/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q5CHb93l026837 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:11 -0700 Message-ID: <4FD77E45.8010402@tlinx.org> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:37:09 -0700 From: "Linda A. Walsh" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: block sizes > 4K ?? possible w/large page support? References: <4FD5643F.5070801@tlinx.org> <4FD6AA2A.3020502@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <4FD6AA2A.3020502@sandeen.net> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs-oss Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 6/10/12 10:21 PM, Linda A. Walsh wrote: >> Is this something being thought about?? >> >> More than one of my hard disks: >> >> /boot: 130 files in 103112 4K blocks: 793.6 blks/file >> /tmp: 1401 files in 746715 4K blocks: 533.4 blks/file >> /var/cache: 1438 files in 87858 4K blocks: 61.5 blks/file >> /backups: 713 files in 2523985177 4K blocks: 3539951.6 blks/file >> /var: 9038 files in 746715 4K blocks: 83.1 blks/file >> /var/cache/squid: 570 files in 90031 4K blocks: 158.4 blks/file >> /Media: 51893 files in 1691400956 4K blocks: 32594.5 blks/file >> /: 37312 files in 506778 4K blocks: 14.0 blks/file >> /usr/share: 320805 files in 195425485 4K blocks: 609.6 blks/file >> /backups/Media: 50544 files in 1642550112 4K blocks: 32497.9 blks/file >> /usr: 116650 files in 1389380 4K blocks: 12.4 blks/file >> /Share: 1617995 files in 305269701 4K blocks: 189.1 blks/file >> /home: 5822174 files in 195412389 4K blocks: 34.0 blks/file >> >> All but 2 could benefit from a 16K block size, and 3 of them could benefit >> from a 128K block size. Wouldn't that benefit in in freeing up some space >> both on disk and in memory? Just a thought. > > Since on average each file in an evenly-distributed filesystem wastes half > a block, in theory each fs would waste 4x more space w/ 16k blocks than > 4k blocks, right? --- Well the real candidates for a larger block size would be backups, and maybe Media... the rest wouldn't benefit. So, it sounds like I might just as well benefit by going to a 1K block size, if there's no cost in smaller block sizes? Or would that be entirely dependent on the files/dir? Those blks/file are 4k-blks/file if there was any doubt... _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs