Mario,
For the reasons you mentioned, having a few different filesystems
(on the order of 5-10, I'd guess) can be handy. Any time you want
different behavior for different types of data, multiple filesystems
are the way to go.
For maximum directory size, it turns out that the practical limits
aren't in ZFS -- they're in your favorite applications, like ls(1)
and file browsers. ZFS won't mind if you put millions of files
in a directory, but ls(1) will be painfully slow. Similarly, if
you're using a mail program and you go to a big directory to grab
an attachment... you'll wait and wait while it reads the first few
bytes of every file in the directory to determine its type.
Hope that helps,
Jeff
Mario Goebbels wrote:
While setting up my new system, I'm wondering whether I should go with plain
directories or use ZFS filesystems for specific stuff. About the cost of ZFS
filesystems, I read on some Sun blog in the past about something like 64k
kernel memory (or whatever) per active filesystem. What are however the
additional costs?
The reason I'm considering multiple filesystems is for instance easy ZFS
backups and snapshots, but also tuning the recordsizes. Like storing lots of
generic pictures from the web, smaller recordsizes may be appropriate to trim
down the waste once the filesize surpasses the record size, aswell as using
large recordsizes for video files on a seperate filesystem. Turning on and off
compression and access times for performance reasons are another thing.
Also, in this same message, I'd like to ask what sensible maximum directory
sizes are. As in amount of files.
Thanks.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
