Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (OTOH, I have no problems with 1.9e6 files in a UFS1 partition
> on a FreeBSD box).
For your amusement: a box running 4.7-RELEASE with 3.3e6 files in a
single directory. It began to exhibit problems but remained usable.
~90MB directory file. Took a whil
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - A statement "these options are no longer necessary and will be
> be removed in a future release" in the newfs(8)-equivalent man
> page should read more like "these options are essential" (this
> relates to dimensioning metadata allocation based on
On Sun, Jan 11, 2004 at 12:25:46AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
>Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Our main fileserver has a filesystem with 2.7e6 files and we
>> are continually running into undocumented "features" (aka bugs) as a
>> result of the large number of files.
>
>I
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Our main fileserver has a filesystem with 2.7e6 files and we
> are continually running into undocumented "features" (aka bugs) as a
> result of the large number of files.
Is 2.7e6 a typo for 2.7e9? I can't imagine *any* modern file system
having
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:35:51AM -0800, Tom Arnold wrote:
>Building a box thats going to house many billions of small files. Think
>innd circa 1998 or someone trying to house AOLs mail system on cyrus or
>something.
This is probably going to stress any filesystem. You might like to
consider an
I previously posted this on -fs but got no responce so I'm trying -hackers.
Building a box thats going to house many billions of small files. Think
innd circa 1998 or someone trying to house AOLs mail system on cyrus or
something. To this end I've hung a 3.3TB hardware raid off a BSD box
broken
6 matches
Mail list logo
