Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
i think ext3 can handle that just fine, i think there is a limit on file size (large single files) there is a new version of the extended file system in the works (ext4) that makes handleing files better.
i have some accounting software and instead of letting the database file get too large i made 12 directories (folders) and named them for each month of the year and every month i put the database file in its correct directory and start a new one, next year i will make another 12 and put them in another directory named 2007, another benefit is the software i use runs better without having a huge single file to deal with.
i think ext3 can handle that just fine, i think there is a limit on file size (large single files) there is a new version of the extended file system in the works (ext4) that makes handleing files better.
i have some accounting software and instead of letting the database file get too large i made 12 directories (folders) and named them for each month of the year and every month i put the database file in its correct directory and start a new one, next year i will make another 12 and put them in another directory named 2007, another benefit is the software i use runs better without having a huge single file to deal with.
Thanx Okie,
i've only got file's of 2 a 3 mb so the size won't be the problem. i'm worried about the amount of file's in a single directory but by your reaction i think that won't be the problem!
If it lists the amount of free inodes for the partition, then presumably the limitation will be for the partition. Note that the number of inodes limits the number of directories and files together. This seems unimportant in your case though since you seem to have far more files than directories.
The implication seems to be that you can have an unlimited number of files in a directory. There may be practical limits, though.
Quote:
> (9) In designing new systems, are there some useful guidelines
> about the maximum number of files that can exist in a single
> directory without significant performance loss?
> I am interested in ext2, ext3, and htree.
Non-htree gets awkward at a few thousand. htree appears to be OK up to
hundreds of thousands. Its practical scalability is unknown, really.
The maximum number of inodes (and hence the maximum number of files and directories) is set when the file system is created. If V is the volume size in blocks, then the default number of inodes is given by V/2^{13}, and the minimum by V/2^{23}. The default was deemed sufficient for most applications.
By default your system would therefore have V/2^{13}, implying that you have a volume size of 14745600 * 2^{13} = 120,795,955,200 blocks. That seems like rather a lot.
The number of inodes is determined when you create a filesystem on a partition.
inodes are used for files and directories (which are also files).
Thus the amount of inodes applies to the entire partition.
If you are planning on using large numbers of files, why not use reiserfs?
It is said that reiserfs is faster when it comes to large numbers of files.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.