Re: [Ext2-devel] [RFC 0/13] extents and 48bit ext3

Alex Tomas
2006-06-09T17:02:04Z

oops :) I don't follow that well ...

size of in-core inodes is a different problem.

thanks, Alex

>>>>> Linus Torvalds (LT) writes:

LT> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> Just as an example: ext3 _sucks_ in many ways. It has huge inodes that
>> take up way too much space in memory.

LT> Btw, I'm not kidding you on this one.

LT> THE NUMBER ONE MEMORY USAGE ON A LOT OF LOADS IS EXT3 INODES IN MEMORY!

LT> And you know what? 2TB files are totally uninteresting to 99.9999% of all
LT> people. Most people find it _much_ more interesting to have hundreds of
LT> thousands of _smaller_ files instead.

LT> So do this:

LT> cat /proc/slabinfo | grep ext3

LT> and be absolutely disgusted and horrified by the size of those inodes
LT> already, and ask yourself whether extending the block size to 48 bits will
LT> help or further hurt one of the biggest problems of ext3 right now?

LT> (And yes, I realize that block numbers are just a small part of it. The
LT> "vfs_inode" is also a real problem - it's got _way_ too many large
LT> list-heads that explode on a 64-bit kernel, for example. Oh, well. My
LT> point is that things like this can make a very real issue _worse_ for all
LT> the people who don't care one whit about it)