Per Jessen said the following on 05/15/2013 10:45 AM:
Hans Witvliet wrote:
Hi Anton, David, Per, Lynn and all others...
[snip]
It is not so much the client i'm worried about: There it is just adding more clients behind a load balancer. I was warned that i should not use ext3 for /home, as you are limited to 30,000 subdirs. For ext4 i know that limit is raised to 60,000. Is there a known ceiling for btrfs?
Dunno, but jfs and xfs don't have one.
I don't think ReiserFS has one but that's moot. What's the issue here? Resisting a mkdir resource exhaustion DOS attack? Lets see, if you don't let users do that and only limit them the the very basic subdirectories they are given then that gives you 10,000+ users. I suspect that "wide, not deep" might be a problem. Perhaps quotas are needed. Of course it all depends on context. One client certainly had more then 25,000 seats but (a) they weren't all on one machine and (b) there were many shared resources oriented towards departments and projects. A real system 'grows' and you need to be flexible enough to change tactics as it grows. Don't expect a paper solution to be valid a couple of years from now. If what they are saying about "post-PC" http://www.zdnet.com/thorsten-heins-the-only-exec-in-the-mobile-biz-that-get... and cloud makes any sense then who knows what you'll be dealing with. Dealing with things dynamically might also involve doing what I often do and that is moving a directory tree to a new FS. If your mount-on-demand mechanism works (e it from systemd, autofs or whatever) then there's no reason that subtrees need to be mounted all in one go or even have then all on one server. I can't tell you details since its going to vary wildly with context, but you might, for example, have all the /home on one server but the ~/Documents/ spread around a number of machines. -- December 32, 1999: We're pleased to report no Y2K failures! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org