On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 07:01:31PM +0200, Peter Niemayer wrote: > On 08/11/2010 02:28 PM, Michael Monnerie wrote: > >Thank you. Are those files located within one dir or do you use a hash > >structure like squid cache does? > > There's only a shallow hierarchy (for functional, not for distribution > reasons), so the relevant directories have thousands of files in them. > > I think after the "ext2"-age no serious file system ever had > a real problem dealing with lots of files in one directory - > or do you have contradicting information? Define "lots of files". :) >From my numbers, ext3/4 still fall way behind XFS and btrfs when it comes to handling directories with tens of thousands of entries or larger. Especially on cold-cache random lookups. XFS also has quite sophisticated internal directory readahead, so under the cold cache directory performance of XFS is far better than ext3/4 can acheive, even for relatively small directories. IIRC this difference in directory lookup performance was one of the prime reasons kernel.org switched from ext3 to XFS a couple of years back... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
