| 1 |
On Dec 12, 2011 9:39 PM, "Joseph" <syscon780@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Quick googling around indicates that JFS, or XFS don't have these |
| 4 |
limitation. |
| 5 |
> -----quote-------- |
| 6 |
> Many computer programs used by system administrators in UNIX operating |
| 7 |
systems often designate files with inode numbers. Examples include popular |
| 8 |
disk integrity checking utilities such as the fsck or pfiles. Thus, the |
| 9 |
need naturally arises to translate inode numbers to file pathnames and vice |
| 10 |
versa. This can be accomplished using the file finding utility find with |
| 11 |
the -inum option, or the ls command with the proper option (-i on POSIX |
| 12 |
compliant platforms). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It is possible to use up a device's set of inodes. When this happens, new |
| 15 |
files cannot be created on the device, even though there may be free space |
| 16 |
available. For example, a mail server may have many small files that don't |
| 17 |
fill up the disk, but use many inodes to point to the numerous files. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Filesystems (such as JFS, or XFS) escape this limitation with extents |
| 20 |
and/or dynamic inode allocation, which can 'grow' the filesystem and/or |
| 21 |
increase the number of inodes. |
| 22 |
> ----end quote------ |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
ReiserFS also doesn't have problems with inodes because everything are kept |
| 26 |
in b*trees that can keep growing indefinitely. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
In fact, I think I read somewhere that ReiserFS is perfect for /var/tmp and |
| 29 |
/usr/src due to the amount of small files in those directories. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Rgds, |
Archives