Re: Linux file systems

["Jerry Feldman-2" <user=4@nabble.blu.org>]

 I'm not keen on an index stored into a database. But, you need to weigh 
in data integrity. It's possible that the journaling feature might 
simply get in your way. Just using a bare ext2 might meet your needs. 
But, to reduce the indexing overhead, possibly a simply b-tree based 
data base should help. Much depends on how many accesses to the 
directory hierarchy you are doing. The bottom line is that it all comes 
down to what your ultimate design and usage is going to be. 

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:11:50 -0400 
Tom Metro <[hidden email]> wrote: 

> [hidden email] wrote: 
> > JFS and XFS behaved similarly to each other, in that big files and 
> > moderately large amounts of moderately large/small files worked well. 
> > Worked well in a high write and file creation environment. IBM's JFS 
> > seemed more stable and with a better tool chain. 
> 
> If your need is for storing large files and having fast deletes, then 
> these should be a good choice, and were both recommended by MythTV users 
> a few years ago when I set up my MythTV box. I'd recommend doing some 
> data mining in their mailing list to see what the latest recommendations 
> are. 
> 
> I ended up choosing XFS, and while I haven't tried JFS to compare, I did 
> find the XFS tools - at least the ones packaged for Ubuntu - to be a bit 
> buggy, and I had to file a few bugs: 
> 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xfsprogs/+bug/81711
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xfsprogs/+bug/81717
> 
> To work around the problems I just reverted to a prior version. They 
> might have been Ubuntu-specific build problems, and they have probably 
> since been resolved. 
> 
> But these bugs gave me the impression that XFS isn't widely used on Ubuntu. 
> 
> 
> > I have a project that may require a million plus directories. 
> 
> That sounds like you want a file system optimized for file indexing, 
> rather than large files. RiserFS probably was the best in that area. I 
> don't recall if Ext4 addresses this, and as Jerry mentioned may not be 
> ready for production in your time frame. 
> 
> You may need to resort to a hybrid solution, with an index stored in a 
> real database.