Ken Schneider - openSUSE said the following on 08/27/2013 09:59 AM:
On 08/27/2013 09:45 AM, Anton Aylward pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
Carlos E. R. said the following on 08/27/2013 09:24 AM:
But then you have the issue of a filesystem with billions of small files...
Which gets us back to the ext[234] vs {reisterFS, BtrFS} issue. Unless someone want to demonstrate why XFS is more suitable for email than any of those.
Because XFS was designed for a filesystem with lots of small files.
I thought it was designed for BIG files, like for video editing. Up to 8 exabytes. With 64K blocks. And Journalling. Journalling is important! I was led to believe that many metadata operations are slower with XFS, such as creation and deletion of large numbers of files. No doubt we are, as with all the currently maintained file systems, dealing with a moving target and assertions about performance might fall into the "yes it used to be but we changed all that" unless it is intrinsic to the architecture. Like with the ext family where the number of inodes is specified at mkfs time vs the btree family where inodes are created dynamically. -- Not everything that is faced can be changed. But nothing can be changed until it is faced. - James Baldwin -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org