On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Jan 2009, Sascha Thomas Spreitzer wrote: > > > >> Hello again, > >> > >> this line looks suspicious to me: > >> > >> # name <active_objs> <num_objs> <objsize> <objperslab> > >> <pagesperslab> : tunables <limit> <batchcount> <sharedfactor> : > >> slabdata <active_slabs> <num_slabs> <sharedavail> > >> ext3_inode_cache 98472 150260 760 5 1 : tunables 54 27 > >> 8 : slabdata 30052 30052 189 > >> > >> Is it 1 big filesystem with about 1,342,177,280 inodes. Has this > >> amount ever be tested in the wild? > > > > Not sure if it has been tested in the wild or not but the filesystem > > itself contains a _TON_ of hardlinks. Creation of hardlinks is one of the > > big purposes of this filesystem. > > > > Well then my idea of making smaller filesystems would break that > then... hmmm I would say that its time to escalate this to Level 2 > support :). What do the filesystem kernel people think? I would bring > them in to see if there is something we are missing. Maybe something > in the dealing with that many inodes per file is causing a problem (or > maybe this is just known behaviour for large filesystems.) By the way, > this is a 64 bit OS correct? > Correct, 64 bit OS. I'm going to get some of our FS guys on the horn as soon as RH is back to work. I think most of them will return on Monday. -Mike _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
