Re: Large directories and poor order correlation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/14/2011 4:37 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 3/14/11 3:24 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
>> Shouldn't copying or extracting or otherwise populating a large
>> directory of many small files at the same time result in a strong
>> correlation between the order the names appear in the directory, and the
>> order their data blocks are stored on disk, and thus, read performance
>> should not be negatively impacted by fragmentation?
> 
> No, because htree (dir_index) dirs returns names in hash-value
> order, not inode number order.  i.e. "at random."

I thought that the htree was used to look up names, but the normal
directory was used to enumerate them?  In other words, the htree speeds
up opening a single file, but slows down traversing the entire
directory, so should not be used there.

Also isn't htree only enabled for large directories?  I still see crummy
correlation for small ( < 100 files, even one with only 8 entries )
directories.

It seems unreasonable to ask applications to read all directory entries,
then sort them by inode number to achieve reasonable performance.  This
seems like something the fs should be doing.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux