Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > tune2fs -O dir_index /dev/sda5 > > But existing directories are not converted. Only new directories are > > Do a forced e2fsck run on the filesystem, and it should add the > indexes to all directories that lack it. It can also change the > hash algorithm. > > BTW, the e2fsck manpage states that it WILL compress directories if > it has any reason to touch the directory. > > If you want e2fsck to rehash or compress all directories, you have > to run it as e2fsck -D so that it will optimize/rehash every > directory, not just those that were lacking indexes or that had to > be repaired.
Oh! I was unaware of the e2fsck -D option. Good deal! > > it though so for the most part that is okay. It is only directories > > such as /tmp that sporadically might have surged large that really > > benefit from a manual recreation conversion in order to have B-trees > > turned on for a migration to dir_index. > > If you have the resources required (RAM), always have ephemeral > "tmp" directories in tmpfs. All contents will be discarded on > reboot/poweroff or if you umount the tmpfs, but it should be the > fastest possible filesystem in Linux as long as you don't start > swapping (xfs and ext4 are much better optimized to the "hit the > spinning rust" case than tmpfs+swapper IME). I also like tmpfs for /tmp for simple systems. But it isn't a general purpose solution for everyone. There are many cases such as when /tmp is used as a large file dropbox that it doesn't work to use a limited size tmpfs. It will take a while for people to change their habits to accomodate the system. In this case it means dropboxing large files in a different directory other than /tmp. And I don't like to work for the machine. I like the machine to work for me. So I can't recommend tmpfs /tmp for *everyone* but it does work well for the cases where it doesn't hurt existing user practices. Bob
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
