On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 04:38:28PM +0200, ac via talk wrote: > Hi Alvin, > > On a 2TB dataset, with +-600k files, I have piped tree to less with > limited joy, it took a few hours and at least I could search for > what I was looking for... - 15TB and 100M is another animal though > and as disk i/o will be your bottleneck, anything will take long, no? > > now, for my own info/interest, can you tell me which fs is used for this > ext3?
Hmm, sounds awful slow. Just for fun I ran find on one of my drives: # time find /data | wc -l 1825463 real 3m57s.208s That is with 5.3T used out of 6.0TB. Running it a second time when it is cached takes 7.7s. Tree takes 14.7s. Another volume: # time find /mythdata | wc -l 54972 real 0m1.924s That is with 15 TB out of 15 TB in use (yes that one always fills up for some reason). Both of those are lvm volumes with ext4 on top of software raid6 using 5400rpm WD red drives. Seems either XFS is unbelievable bad, or there isn't enough ram to cache the filesystem metadata if you are having a problem with 100M files. I only have a measly 32GB in my home machine. -- Len Sorensen --- Post to this mailing list talk@gtalug.org Unsubscribe from this mailing list https://gtalug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk