For Christ sake can somebody unsubscribe my email. On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Gora Mohanty <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
