You can, therefore, import more packages into the package repository through bundles. On deleting the package bundles, the packages are orphaned in the package repository if they are not associated with any other bundles. You can configure a non EXT3 file system as a ZENworks Package Repository by adding an additional disk or a new volume, and then migrate the package repository data from the EXT3 file system to the new file system.
The new file system can be a Reiserfs or XFS file system. Site Search User. Arvind Tiwary. Problem The EXT3 file system can have only subdirectories under a given directory. This new kernel, on loading, allows you to create a maximum of subdirectories under a given directory.
On upgrading the kernel package, these changes are lost, and the new kernel must be recompiled again. This proposed solution of patching the kernel source and recompiling the new kernel is officially not supported by Novell for the ZLM Servers with the EXT3 file systems.
For more information here, you can email your queries to tarvindkumar [at] novell [dot] com. How To-Best Practice. I have a directory with 88, files in it.
Like yourself this is used for storing thumbnails and on a Linux server. Listed files via FTP or a php function is slow yes, but there is also a performance hit on displaying the file. I've given this answer as most people have just written how directory search functions will perform, which you won't be using on a thumb folder - just statically displaying files, but will be interested in performance of how the files can actually be used.
It depends a bit on the specific filesystem in use on the Linux server. So speed shouldn't be an issue, other than the one you already noted, which is that listings will take longer. There is a limit to the total number of files in one directory. I seem to remember it definitely working up to files.
Keep in mind that on Linux if you have a directory with too many files, the shell may not be able to expand wildcards. I have this issue with a photo album hosted on Linux. It stores all the resized images in a single directory.
While the file system can handle many files, the shell can't. I'm working on a similar problem right now. We have a hierarchichal directory structure and use image ids as filenames.
With a few thousand images, you could use a one-level hierarchy. For what it's worth, I just created a directory on an ext4 file system with 1,, files in it, then randomly accessed those files through a web server. I didn't notice any premium on accessing those over say only having 10 files there. This is radically different from my experience doing this on ntfs a few years back.
I've been having the same issue. Trying to store millions of files in a Ubuntu server in ext4. Ended running my own benchmarks.
Found out that flat directory performs way better while being way simpler to use:. Wrote an article. The biggest issue I've run into is on a bit system. Once you pass a certain number, tools like 'ls' stop working. For example, ext3 can have many thousands of files; but after a couple of thousands, it used to be very slow.
Mostly when listing a directory, but also when opening a single file. A few years ago, it gained the 'htree' option, that dramatically shortened the time needed to get an inode given a filename. Personally, I use subdirectories to keep most levels under a thousand or so items.
In your case, I'd create directories, with the two last hex digits of the ID. Use the last and not the first digits, so you get the load balanced. If the time involved in implementing a directory partitioning scheme is minimal, I am in favor of it. The first time you have to debug a problem that involves manipulating a file directory via the console you will understand.
This also makes the files more easily browsable from a third party application. Never assume that your software is the only thing that will be accessing your software's files. It absolutely depends on the filesystem. Many modern filesystems use decent data structures to store the contents of directories, but older filesystems often just added the entries to a list, so retrieving a file was an O n operation.
There isn't a per-directory "max number" of files, but a per-directory "max number of blocks used to store file entries". Specifically, the size of the directory itself can't grow beyond a b-tree of height 3, and the fanout of the tree depends on the block size. See this link for some details. In my case, a directory with a mere , files was unable to be copied to the destination.
Under Windows, any directory with more than 2k files tends to open slowly for me in Explorer. If they're all image files, more than 1k tend to open very slowly in thumbnail view. At one time, the system-imposed limit was 32, It's higher now, but even that is way too many files to handle at one time under most circumstances. What most of the answers above fail to show is that there is no "One Size Fits All" answer to the original question.
In today's environment we have a large conglomerate of different hardware and software -- some is 32 bit, some is 64 bit, some is cutting edge and some is tried and true - reliable and never changing. Added to that is a variety of older and newer hardware, older and newer OSes, different vendors Windows, Unixes, Apple, etc.
As hardware has improved and software is converted to 64 bit compatibility, there has necessarily been considerable delay in getting all the pieces of this very large and complex world to play nicely with the rapid pace of changes.
IMHO there is no one way to fix a problem. The solution is to research the possibilities and then by trial and error find what works best for your particular needs.
Each user must determine what works for their system rather than using a cookie cutter approach. I for example have a media server with a few very large files. The result is only about files filling a 3 TB drive. Someone else, with a lot of smaller files may run out of inodes before they come near to filling the space. While theoretically the total number of files that may be contained within a directory is nearly infinite, practicality determines that the overall usage determine realistic units, not just filesystem capabilities.
I hope that all the different answers above have promoted thought and problem solving rather than presenting an insurmountable barrier to progress. Of course. Filesystems like EXT3 can be very slow. Solution I prefer the same way as armandino. Finally you should think about how to reduce the amount of files in total. Depending on your target you can use CSS sprites to combine multiple tiny images like avatars, icons, smilies, etc.
In my case I had thousands of mini-caches and finally I decided to combine them in packs of I ran into a similar issue. I was trying to access a directory with over 10, files in it.
It was taking too long to build the file list and run any type of commands on any of the files. I thought up a little php script to do this for myself and tried to figure a way to prevent it from time out in the browser. I recall running a program that was creating a huge amount of files at the output.
The files were sorted at per directory. I do not recall having any read problems when I had to reuse the produced output. It was on an bit Ubuntu Linux laptop, and even Nautilus displayed the directory contents, albeit after a few seconds. I respect this doesn't totally answer your question as to how many is too many, but an idea for solving the long term problem is that in addition to storing the original file metadata, also store which folder on disk it is stored in - normalize out that piece of metadata.
Once a folder grows beyond some limit you are comfortable with for performance, aesthetic or whatever reason, you just create a second folder and start dropping files there That's cool. I've seen the instructions on converting without having to wipe the OS, but Im too much of a chickenshit to try it Ill wait for the bugs to get worked out. I do actually run a development-server on a Gnome-based install for which I used the alternate 9.
Maybe that's not the best solution, but it works best for me because I sometimes need to use the machine it's also my laptop. Upgrading to 9. I don't have any problems yet, but I'm just curious about the limitations of ext3. If the wikipedia entry is correct then it means per inode - which means that every directory can have directories under it, not that there are altogether.
You can have more than 32, subdirectories in a filesystem, just not in a single subdirectory. I did some tests on this recently.
As to advantages of ext4fs, one set relate to very big hard disks. You can create larger filesystems that is, filesystems that fill larger partitions or logical volumes with ext4fs, and you can create larger files with ext4fs. The limits for ext3fs are larger than you can exceed on a single physical disk, though, so this really is only an issue for big servers.
Another advantage of ext4fs is that it improves performance, particularly in areas in which ext3fs has often lagged. For instance, if you've got a big file with a size measured in the gigabytes, say and delete it, it will take ext3fs a while to do the job.
0コメント