On Sonntag, 25. Mai 2008, Stroller wrote: > On 25 May 2008, at 00:24, Willie Wong wrote: > > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 04:49:09PM -0500, Penguin Lover > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] squawked: > >> ... > >> I use Reiserfs with default sizes. In some situations like a large > >> cache of nntp messages of several GB. I might wait 5-10 minutes > >> or more > >> for du to get the size of the directory. > > > > I am pretty sure the problem with du is that it actually looks, > > recursively, at every single file and computes the size that way. > > What he said. > > > Or maybe there is some other tool or technique that can quickly tell > > me the size of a directory or set of directories. > > Keep all the files in a honkin' big tarball. > > :P > > If you need to read these files on the fly then I'm afraid you'll > have to write a kernel filesystem extension (or find one?) that will > read them out of the tar file, slowing all read & write actions down. > But, hey, `du` on the tarball will complete in no time at all!! ;) > > In seriousness, another thing to do is keep these files on a separate > partition, if you can. Basically a user's ~ which includes > both .maildir and "My HiDef Videos" is non-optimal. > > >> Are there other file systems that can return a result of `du' faster? > > All filesystems have their advantages & disadvantages. > > <http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388>
one thing the article does not mention: reiserfs and xfs your barriers by default. ext3 does not. And if you turn on barriers (as mount option) you loose 30% of its speed. Of course, if you care about data integrity, LVM is ruled out too - for the same reason. So if you care about data integrity and speed at the same time, ext3 is ruled out. XFS is broken on a monthly basis (just search the lkml archives for xfs. It is sickening). Leaves reiserfs as only sane choice. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
