Hi Nicolas, Nicolas KOWALSKI <niko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Sebastian Reitenbach" <sebastia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > installhost2:~ # time ls -la /mnt/index/ | wc -l > > 500005 > > > > real 2m41.015s > > user 0m4.568s > > sys 0m6.520s > > > > > > installhost2:~ # time ls -la /mnt/noindex/ | wc -l > > 500005 > > > > real 0m10.792s > > user 0m3.172s > > sys 0m6.000s > > > > I expected the dir_index should speedup this a little bit? > > I assume I'm still missing sth? > > I think the point of dir_index is "only" to quickly find in a large > directory a file when you _already_ have its name. > > The performance of listing is not its purpose, and as you noted it, > even makes performance worse. ah, that would explain what I've seen here. after reading your answer, I found this older mail in the archives: http://osdir.com/ml/file-systems.ext3.user/2004-09/msg00029.html So everything seems to depend on how the application is using the filesystem. Picking a single given file might be faster than with a plain ext3, but scanning and opening all files in a directory might become slower. I wanted to use the dir_index for some partitions, like for cyrus imap server, and for some other applications. I think I have to benchmark the applications, to see whether they get a speed gain of the dir_index or not. kind regards Sebastian > _______________________________________________ Ext3-users mailing list Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
