On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 12:08 -0700, Nikhil Khandelwal wrote: [SNIP]
> Since file systems created at 4.X.X and earlier used a block size > that kept this allocation in mind, there should be very little impact > on existing file systems. That is quite a presumption. I would say that file systems created at 4.X.X and earlier potentially used a block size that was the best *compromise*, and the new options would work a lot better. So for example supporting a larger block size for users who have sane workflows while still not wasting a ton of space for the biomedical folks who abuse the file system as a database. Though I have come to the conclusion to stop them using the file system as a database (no don't do ls in that directory there is 200,000 files and takes minutes to come back) is to put your BOFH hat on quota them on maximum file numbers and suggest to them that they use a database even if it is just sticking it all in SQLite :-D JAB. -- Jonathan A. Buzzard Tel: +44141-5483420 HPC System Administrator, ARCHIE-WeSt. University of Strathclyde, John Anderson Building, Glasgow. G4 0NG _______________________________________________ gpfsug-discuss mailing list gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss
