Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:01:08 +0200 (CEST) From: Alessio Focardi <alessiof@gmail.com> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Millions of small files: best filesystem / best options Message-ID: <1490568508.7110.1338224468089.JavaMail.root@zimbra.interconnessioni.it> In-Reply-To: <922B261C-4AB8-49A9-96CE-16C98B265604@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> FreeBSD handles this wonderfully thanks to all the people that have > put in time and effort over the years. That's a great news and I recognize the effort of the community! > I wasn't aware that FreeBSD was unique in this respect, but yes, > FreeBSD has a block size and a fragment size. While formatting a UFS > filesystem you can specify these sizes with the "-b SIZE" and "-f > SIZE" arguments to newfs(8), for example: > > newfs -b 16384 -f 2048 /dev/da0s1a -b block-size The block size of the file system, in bytes. It must be a power of 2. The default size is 16384 bytes, and the smallest allow- able size is 4096 bytes. -f frag-size The fragment size of the file system in bytes. It must be a power of two ranging in value between blocksize/8 and blocksize. The default is 2048 bytes. So in my case I would have to use -b 4096 -f 512 It's an improvement, but still is not ideal: still a big waste with 200 bytes files! ZFS with compression, maybe? > Choose your hardware wisely. After you have chosen your hardware > wisely, set it up even more wisely. That's a good advice! I'm still working on the theory of the system, trying to find a solution for the "slack" problem, then it will come the time to look at a storage platform and surely we will choose something we can trust! Tnx for you reply, informative and well written!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1490568508.7110.1338224468089.JavaMail.root>