[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch
From: |
Momchil Velikov |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch |
Date: |
27 Sep 2003 20:03:23 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
>> From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
>> Um, which `Darkly Hinted Efficiency Improvements' are those?
>> I've done somewhat precise calculations of the potential space savings,
>> and it's quite substantial on some trees, especially those with lots of
>> smallish files. Time-savings probably would be less noticable, because
>> of the recent inode-state-caching speedups.
Tom> Why _don't_ you regard this as a filesystem implementation deficiency,
Tom> assuming it is really a problem at all?
Tom> It seems to me that a 2-3:1 disk-usage:small-file-size ratio is not
Tom> _much_ of a problem, in the big picture, in terms of bucks-per-byte of
Tom> storage. To the degree that it is a problem today, we should expect
Tom> it to cease being so within the next couple of years.
Tom> On the other hand, 2-3:1 i/o-traffic-size:small-file-size and
Tom> kernel-cache-usage:small-fize-size ratios would be very bad news and,
Tom> to the extent those things are true, indicate serious filesystem
Tom> problems.
Tom> When people start saying "small files work so poorly that applications
Tom> should implement filesystem-like functionality to handle them
Tom> themselves", something has gone very badly wrong either with their
Tom> rationale for that, or with the filesystems under consideration.
Without claiming one or another piece of software has deficiencies,
let's say existing filesystems are not the most efficient form of
storage organization, as far as arch is concerned.
So, what?
Nobody's gonna rewrite the trusted filesystems. Not everyone would
trust his data to the new rewrites (how about no backup superblocks in
reiser3). There's no other option than using the filesystems in a
different way.
Personally, I wouldn't be worried _that_ much about 10-15% space
increase (though 57% is ridiculous), but about the time spent doing
open(2) on thousands of files.
~velco
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Charles Duffy, 2003/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Florian Weimer, 2003/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch [reiserfs-bashing], Charles Duffy, 2003/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch [reiserfs-bashing], Miles Bader, 2003/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Momchil Velikov, 2003/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Adam Spiers, 2003/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch,
Momchil Velikov <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Andrew Suffield, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Dustin Sallings, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Tom Lord, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, David Brown, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Florian Weimer, 2003/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Florian Weimer, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Patrick Mauritz, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/29