The current (V4.2+) levels of code support bigger directory block sizes, so it's no longer an issue with something like 1M metadata block size. In fact, there isn't a whole lot of difference between 256K and 1M metadata block sizes, either would work fine. There isn't really a downside in selecting a different block size for metadata though.
Inode size (mmcrfs -i option) is orthogonal to the metadata block size selection. We do strongly recommend using 4K inodes to anyone. There's the obvious downside of needing more metadata storage for inodes, but the advantages are significant. yuri From: Jan-Frode Myklebust <janfr...@tanso.net> To: gpfsug main discussion list <gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org>, Date: 09/22/2016 12:25 PM Subject: Re: [gpfsug-discuss] Blocksize Sent by: gpfsug-discuss-boun...@spectrumscale.org https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/forums/html/topic?id=77777777-0000-0000-0000-000014774266 "Use 256K. Anything smaller makes allocation blocks for the inode file inefficient. Anything larger wastes space for directories. These are the two largest consumers of metadata space." --dlmcnabb A bit old, but I would assume it still applies. -jf On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Stef Coene <stef.co...@docum.org> wrote: Hi, Is it needed to specify a different blocksize for the system pool that holds the metadata? IBM recommends a 1 MB blocksize for the file system. But I wonder a smaller blocksize (256 KB or so) for metadata is a good idea or not... Stef _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
_______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss