mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages 1 Wiki Activity Actions

Added a comment

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
zardoz 2014-07-15 07:29:37 +00:00 • committed by admin
parent 65ea8409ec
commit 9178019bc3
1 changed files with 28 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

28
doc/forum/Performance_implications_of_triply_nested_objects_directory/comment_3_1133795276371c86cdd52b25a8b20c52._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="zardoz"
ip="134.147.14.84"
subject="comment 3"
date="2014-07-15T07:29:37Z"
content="""
The ext-community seems to
[corroborate](http://www.redhat.com/archives/ext3-users/2013-March/msg00007.html)
the observation that having many sparse directories scales extremely
poorly, though this still leaves me curious as to how btrfs deals
with.
One thing I read is that btrfs stores a secondary index on directories
and uses this index in the readdir() syscall; this secondary index
works in such a way that inodes are likely to be traversed in
sequential on-disk order, while for ext, the readdir() results will be
ordered by inode number, yielding a random access pattern.
I must confess I’ve always liked to think of the file-system as a
cheap data-base, but apparently that is not such a good idea (i. e.,
it’s not cheap at all, in the long run). On the other hand (supposing
that operations like «git annex unused» do indeed work by traversing
the object tree), it probably wouldn’t be easy coming up with a scheme
that scales better. For traversal-bound operations, one might maintain
a database, but it would be a hassle to ensure that this in always in
sync with the file-system.
"""]]