Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yeah, because ext4 never cleans up the dentry table after it's been made. This is a pain. Unfortunately XFS also sucks for handling larger numbers of files - at the hundreds of millions or larger scale, you're largely metadata bound - and XFS is very slow at this for a number of reasons.

RH did an interesting study a while back [0] on storing 1 billion files, which came out in favor of ext4. If you're able to work around the lack of dentry cleanup, I still think ext4 is probably the best choice here (ideally with the journal on a small SSD) - assuming you can't store them in a database or something more appropriate like mogileFS [1]

[0]: http://www.redhat.com/summit/2011/presentations/summit/decod...

[1]: https://code.google.com/p/mogilefs/wiki/Start



Slide 32 suggests that XFS performance took the lead again after RHEL 6.2. Am I mistaken?

See also https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_E...


I wonder if you know about Dave Chinner's talk, which addresses the metadata performance issue. (they fixed it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw


I hadn't seen that - that's interesting. Thanks.


> Yeah, because ext4 never cleans up the dentry table after it's been made.

Why is that? It doesn't seem to make much sense.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: