[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Question: Maximum number of directories? OT question...

In article <[🔎] 20051207210903.GB3999@big>,
Paul E Condon  <pecondon@mesanetworks.net> wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:46:14PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> In article <[🔎] 009301c5f9f1$b4654f20$6400a8c0@slocal>,
>> Gerorge Reece-Howe <molehill@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> >> "Jochen Schulz" <ml@well-adjusted.de>
>> >
>> >>You can see that / and /srv are ext3 and /var and /home are xfs. I
>> >>chose xfs for these because they contain directories with a lot of
>> >>files (the already mentioned Maildirs and a news spool). So far, I had
>> >>no problems with xfs.
>> >
>> >I'll see how I go with ext3 for now, but I'll keep that in mind.
>> Ext2 and ext3 get really slow when you have lots of files (or
>> subdirectories) in one directory.
>> However that was fixed some time ago. If you're running 2.6 you
>> can enable the dir_index on an ext3 filesystem. See man mkfs.ext3:
>>        -O feature[,...]
>>               Create  filesystem  with  given  features  (filesystem options)
>>                    dir_index
>>                           Use  hashed  b-trees  to  speed  up lookups in large
>>                           directories.
>> You can enable this on existing filesystems using tune2fs. See man
>> tune2fs(8) for more information.
>I've looked at the man page. I'm interested in trying this, but I have a
>question: The -O feature... option allows one to set and clear file system
>features, but how can I query the system to discover which features are
>set on which volumes?

$ man tune2fs

       -l     List the contents of the filesystem superblock.

# tune2fs -l /dev/sda1
tune2fs 1.37 (21-Mar-2005)
Filesystem volume name:   /
Last mounted on:          <not available>
Filesystem UUID:          71c1a321-ec0e-45c1-967a-59529cc8def0
Filesystem magic number:  0xEF53
Filesystem revision #:    1 (dynamic)
Filesystem features:      has_journal filetype needs_recovery sparse_super


Reply to: