On 15/01/18 02:22 PM, Wol's lists wrote:
On 15/01/18 18:33, Lew Wolfgang wrote:
On 01/15/2018 10:27 AM, Per Jessen wrote:
Sounds to me like you just ought to try it out. You're not making a strategic decision for the future, you can always change to something else.
JFS is a mature filesystem that just works and works and works. IIRC, Backblaze (storage provider) used to swear by JFS.
Why would one select JFS before XFS for large RAID data storage? Arrays larger than 50-TB, for example.
Because that's not the problem.
ReiserFS is *very* good at dealing with lots of small files - something which *most* filesystems have problems.
If you have a 50TB filesystem FULL of files with an average size of, say, 4K, what will that do to XFS performance?
I looked at the distribution of file sizes for my /etc (which is on a ext4 'cos I can figure out the constraints there beforehand). As you can see, the bulk of the file will fit in one sector and a significant number can be packed or tail packed File Size # of files 0 9 1 1 4 2 8 8 16 28 32 57 64 119 128 200 256 231 512 248 1024 258 2048 235 4096 123 8192 144 16384 49 32768 85 65536 10 131072 6 262144 2 524288 4 1048576 1 2097152 1 4194304 1 The numbers for my ~anton and my ~anton/Documents partitions are even more dramatic. Packing (sharing a block) and inode packing are really going to be effective. Why is this relevant? ===================== Service providers such as the ones I use, Dreamhost, implement share account and virtual machines on systems where users are going to have a lot of files like this. The machines hosting the databases for the web services will be separate. Does JFS do any form or 'packing'? -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org