3 ms·
This seems to be one of those bits of old UNIX lore that's being lost - it used to be fairly well-known in sysadmin circles that if you were going to be storing
by caf 10y ago
This seems to be one of those bits of old UNIX lore that's being lost - it used to be fairly well-known in sysadmin circles that if you were going to be storing a lot of tiny files, you should create your filesystem with a higher than usual number of inodes (the classic case was an NNTP spool mount).
- bArray 10y ago"This seems to be one of those bits of old UNIX lore that's being lost" Hopefully not now, this is why we all appreciate people sharing these sorts of information :)
- gioele 10y ago> if you were going to be storing a lot of tiny files, you should create your filesystem with a higher than usual number of inodes (the classic case was an NNTP spool mount). I wonder how many people understand what the term "news server" of the partition wizard in the Debian installer means.
- technofiend 10y agoI literally just solved an issue this weekend that was inode exhaustion: there were years of snapshots and traces laying around and the DBAs were confused as to why the database couldn't create a directory to start and was exiting with "No space left on device" when there was 5% storage free. That lead to the second discussion of why you don't fix it by piping filenames one by one to rm, but either use find's inbuilt unlink/rm if there is one or xargs to rm if not.
- greggyb 10y agoIs that second discussion just a performance thing, or are there filesystem implications for one or the other?
- technofiend 10y agoJust speed: you don't spin up a new process for each file removed if you use xargs.