Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 29 Dec 97 22:00 MET | From | (Hans-Joachim Baader) | Subject | Re: Filesystem optimization.. |
| |
In article <x74t3szrih.fsf@metal.iinet.net.au> you write: >While staring dejectedly at a filesystem holding a tad of 3 million >files, and looking at the 'orrible latency to open a file, it occured >to me that with most usage patterns, two things are true:
How many of these files are actually accessed within an our? Or within a day?
> > 1) There are very few inodes that have more than one parent > (i.e. more than one filename pointing to them)
No, a news spool of INN actually contains many hard links.
> 3) On most modern hard disks, the cost of reading 4K as > opposed to reading 1K is minute (it's dominated by > seek times etc).
It could actually speed up access. But I think prefetching is done already anyway, at various levels.
>Then it occured to me that if you force aligning inodes on 64 byte >boundries, the addressable filesystem goes to 256gig (probably enough >for now).
No. Terabyte disk arrays already exist, and terabyte disks and files will be there within a few years. If we ignore this we end up with a degenerate system like Windoze.
>Comments?? (people dying to implement such a beast? :)
I guess something should be done, but not this way. There are several new filesystems under construction. Perhaps one of these can implement some optimizations.
hjb
-- Veni, Vidi, VISA: I came, I saw, I did a little shopping.
| |