Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 13:34:09 +0200 From: Mipam <mipam@ibb.net> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: William Freeman <wdf@picusnet.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: xfs and freebsd? Message-ID: <20000602133409.D377@ibb0021.ibb.uu.nl> In-Reply-To: <20000403101925.H42140@freebie.lemis.com>; from grog@lemis.com on Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:19:25AM %2B0930 References: <20000403022421.A13027@ibb0021.ibb.uu.nl> <20000402193140.A43016@gwernache.picusnet.com> <20000403022421.A13027@ibb0021.ibb.uu.nl> <20000403101925.H42140@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Now xfs is comming into linux, what about the thought of xfs in > > freebsd? >=20 > We're investigating it. >=20 > > and contains no inodes=20 >=20 > XFS uses inodes. > Okay, okay..... let me phrase it differently. XFS uses a space manager to allocate disk space for the file system=20 and control the inodes. Inodes are created as needed and are not restricted to a particular=20 area on a disk partition. XFS tries to position the inodes close to the files and directories they reference.=20 Very small files, such as symbolic links and some directories, are stored as part of the inode, to increase performance and save space.=20 Large directories use B-tree indexing within the directory file to speed up directory searches, additions and deletions. So in a way inodes are created dynamicly. > > which is good for scalibility. >=20 > Why? >=20 Suppose you have an disk with 3 terabyte on a partition and you just created an fs on it with the default options. If you put millions of small files in many directories, you'll run out of inodes and the rest of the diskspace cant be used anymore cause of that. And just changing the amount of bytes per inode isnt possible without newfs the partition. Xfs isnt bothered by this limit and is therefor scalable. And of course the jornalling is cool and therefore the possibility to recover in case of disaster is better then that of ufs. So when i am very rude i say: xfs =3D ufs - limitations. Of course, performance wise i cant say it. But for a journalling fs the xfs performs well. Bye, Mipam. --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: this is the gnupg Mipam key iD8DBQE5N5uxsdVeYIaXThgRAgB3AJ48Yrx6ZTRE7InDWnVAePTEHBjL5QCgjTNS C8xfPaX5s1+BBetI9Fv7Rfg= =+daC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000602133409.D377>