From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 08:34:30 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58511065745 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:34:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5C662019F3; Tue, 29 May 2012 08:33:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FC489D1.6070609@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 01:33:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Kalchev References: <1490568508.7110.1338224468089.JavaMail.root@zimbra.interconnessioni.it> <4FC457F7.9000800@FreeBSD.org> <20120529161802.N975@besplex.bde.org> <20120529175504.K1291@besplex.bde.org> <4FC48729.5050302@digsys.bg> In-Reply-To: <4FC48729.5050302@digsys.bg> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Millions of small files: best filesystem / best options 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: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:34:30 -0000 On 5/29/2012 1:22 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > But how big the entire filesystem is going to be, anyway? Your math is good, but the problem isn't how big the data is going to be on disk, it's how to get some kind of reasonable performance. Just because you can jam something onto a disk doesn't mean you can get it back off again in any kind of a timely manner. :) This is even more true if you have a large data set combined with a highly random access pattern that doesn't repeat often enough to benefit from the cache. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection