From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 6 10:35:09 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0E41065672 for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:35:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-fs@m.gmane.org) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB79A8FC0C for ; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 10:35:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QePRi-0004jQ-Mp for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:35:06 +0200 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:35:06 +0200 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:35:06 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 12:34:53 +0200 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <1309217450.43651.YahooMailRC@web120014.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20110628010822.GA41399@icarus.home.lan> <1309302840.88674.YahooMailRC@web120004.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20110628234723.GA63965@icarus.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101102 Thunderbird/3.1.6 In-Reply-To: <20110628234723.GA63965@icarus.home.lan> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Subject: Re: Improving old-fashioned UFS2 performance with lots of inodes... X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 10:35:09 -0000 On 29/06/2011 01:47, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: >> unfortunately, so for now we will use UFS2, and as I said ... it seems a shame >> that UFS2 cannot use system RAM for any good purpose... >> >> Or can it ? Anyone ? > > Like I said: the only person (I know of) who could answer this would be > Kirk McKusick. I'm not well-versed in the inner workings and design of > filesystems; Kirk would be. I'm not sure who else "knows" UFS around > here. UFS will use all your memory for caching, there's no known issues here. Of course, you still need to read all this data in to be cached. As Jeremy said, even ZFS will not help you with huge file systems without some work. You could read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharding and simply replace "databases" with "file systems" and "tables" with "directories" :)