On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 11:51 PM, David Dooling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 01:43:10PM -0400, Robert Citek wrote: >> Anyone got a recommendation for a filesystem that can hold 10+ million >> files in a single directory? > > Don't do that. Seriously, don't do that. Even if it works, it won't > be pretty, or usable. Hash your file names and put them in two or > three levels of subdirectories based on the first characters of the > hash.
I agree. Having that many files is a huge resource drain when working with them, including rsyncing to a backup server. However, using an alternative filesystem would be a quick-and-dirty stop-gap method for until this client can find the resources to implement a workable solution such as creating tar file archives or splitting the files into subdirectories or using a database (my 2nd choice) or even deleting the files (my first choice) which many they suspect are unneeded. Regards, - Robert -- Central West End Linux Users Group (via Google Groups) Main page: http://www.cwelug.org To post: [email protected] To subscribe: [email protected] To unsubscribe: [email protected] More options: http://groups.google.com/group/cwelug
