On 10 January 2013 23:52, alxsss <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > One advantage of storing thumbnails in a separate folder is that the index > size will be much less. However, I recently have heard that linux systems > have problem storing millions of files under a folder?
Haven't had occasion to try it, but my understanding was that new file systems like ext4 support billions of files per directory, and that the size of the inode table can be tuned. Here is one supporting link: http://serverfault.com/questions/104986/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-files-a-file-system-can-contain What might be problematic on a directory with a large number of files is "ls", and certain other coreutils programs. > > Also, I checked > google and yandex image search and it seems that both of them store files > under a folder, since their src links for images are > https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSGL7cSq_9YwSB3sUc6p2CcjioRrtYxouBcgVbo_063ghF8DODZ, > http://im0-tub-ru.yandex.net/i?id=209844222-71-72&n=21 respectively. Sorry, how do you conclude from the URLs that the files are stored in a single folder? In general, I would think that storing files on the filesystem, with a path stored in the Solr index makes sense. There has been a lot of work put into efficiently reading static files by a web server from a filesystem. This should also be easy to test. Regards, Gora
