--- Steven Critchfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 13:30 -0800, beonice wrote:
> >
... snip ...
> > Would it help to split the db off to a separate
> server
> > (that should reduce the CPU load on the asterisk
> > server)?
> >
> > Any other alternatives? Anyone verified whether
> the
> > BLOB storage solution breaks down first or the
> number
> > of inodes runs out first? :)
>
> On a 40gig drive I have, there are 4.7million
> inodes.
>
> On an 80gig drive I have there are 9.4million
> inodes.
>
> Block size is (I think) 32k on these machines. At
> 32k I could only use
> 2.6 million inodes pointing to minimum sized files
> on the 80gig drive.
>
> If you are worried about inodes, I believe it is xfs
> that dynamically
> creates inodes as needed and won't run out.
Thanks, Steven. This is exactly what I was hoping to
find out. DB performance issues aside, I was worried
about running out of resources on the filesystem
itself if I used the present vm storage mechanism.
Cheers,
Maya
__________________________________
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
