From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 29 09:16:25 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7761B106564A for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 09:16:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from alessio@interconnessioni.it) Received: from zimbra.interconnessioni.it (zimbra.interconnessioni.it [194.126.148.30]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4428FC17 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 09:16:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.interconnessioni.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 817E664019 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:15:58 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.interconnessioni.it.interconnessioni.it Received: from zimbra.interconnessioni.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.interconnessioni.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sdUxJsfsIXn8 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:15:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zimbra.interconnessioni.it (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.interconnessioni.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C77664012 for ; Tue, 29 May 2012 11:15:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 11:15:54 +0200 (CEST) From: Alessio Focardi To: freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <49722655.1520.1338282954302.JavaMail.root@zimbra.interconnessioni.it> In-Reply-To: <4FC486BC.3050808@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.16.199.68] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.1.4_GA_2555 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.1.4_GA_2555) Cc: 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 09:16:25 -0000 > > I ran a Usenet server this way for quite a while with fairly good > > results, though the average file size was a bit bigger, about 2K or > > so. > > I found that if I didn't use "-o space" that space optimization > > wouldn't > > kick in soon enough and I'd tend to run out of full blocks that > > would be > > needed for larger files. Fragmentation is not a problem for me, mostly I will have a write once-read many situation, still is not clear to me if "-o space" works in the constraints of the block/fragment ratio, that in my case it would still mean that I will have to use a 512 bytes subblock for every 200 byte files. ps really thank you for all of your help! Alessio Focardi ------------------