3 ms·
It is not just fat32 and overhead up to cluster size; once I had 800k tiles in a single directory on ntfs. It was unusable. The only thing that I was able to d
by vetinari 3y ago
It is not just fat32 and overhead up to cluster size; once I had 800k tiles in a single directory on ntfs.
It was unusable. The only thing that I was able to do is to tar it up and move to a machine with xfs, where I was able to sort it up into more balanced subdirs and then move it back (for processing using windows-only tool). Just tarring that single directory up took several days.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y agoIt's not just ntfs. I tested this a few months ago in a pretty unscientific manner using ~50 million files in one directory. btrfs was unusable (not only that particular directory, but the whole filesystem became noticeably slower). ext4 was ok. xfs didn't break a sweat. I don't recall any practical difference when compared against a nested tree like ├── aa │ ├── aa │ │ └── aaaaf3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709 │ ├── ab │ └── ac └── ab ├── aa ├── ab └── ac
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]