 | | | 10 million files on Redhat? | 10 million files on Redhat? 2005-07-11 - By Matthew Melvin
Back
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 at 4:46pm (-0700), Cabbar Duzayak wrote:
> I am planning to undertake a project where I need to store around 10
> million images on (a) dedicated server(s)... At this point, I am
> trying to decide whether I should store them on the database or on the
> filesystem.
>
> And, my question is do you think Redhat can handle this many files? I
> will probably store them on a RAID 5 system, and of course I will
> partition them over 4 level of directories and one directory will
> contain at most (100 files) or (100 directories), but still, I am
> curios to know if Redhat can handle this?
>
> Does anyone have experience with this many files on linux filesystems?
> Also, can you recommend which FS would be the best (in terms of
> reliability and/or speed) Any suggestions/feedback?
>
I have two mailstores of 19.3 and 18.4 million files each on (mostly*)
vanilla rh7.3 ext3 partitions without drama. The number of files per dir is
a much bigger issue but your 100 files per dir isn't going to have any
problems there. Naturally fsck'ing a file system with that many files on it
takes a looooong time but since ext3 I havn't had to do that.
I can't answer if this better or worse than a database for you but it does
work. :)
M.
* bytes per inode was tuned so that inodes and blocks ran out at roughly the
same rate but this isn't relevent to your question - it acutally results in
less indoes than would be available normally.
--
:wq!
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@(protected)?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Earn $52 per hosting referral at Lunarpages.
|
|
|