> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : David Sarrazin [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> Envoyé : 20 septembre 2010 09:55
> À : general-filesystems
> Objet : RE: qnx6f max file number
> 
> Each inode requires 128 bytes, so 100M inodes is 12.8GB, plus the indirect
> blocks.  Finding a free inode in a mostly-full system would be time expensive
> at that scale.  What you are saying is that you expect your 2TB drive to be
> filled up with 10KByte average-sized files.  Having said that, I know that the
> test group here has a 2TB server set up with 10M inodes.
> 
That would be 20K files ;-)  I exaggerated that number a bit to get a good idea. Files will be 400K so 5 millions would 
be closer to what we need.

Can you define 'time expensive'?  The hardware driver will operate almost 90% full, with around 100 files new files 
written and the 100 oldest files deleted.

Thanks David.

> mkqnx6fs uses the hint of -T to guess at the average file size.  The number of
> inodes are then selected based on that.
> 
> The (current, but might change) values are:
> 
> Desktop:  1024 byte block,  8 blocks/file
> Media:    2048 byte block,  512 blocks/file
> Runtime:  1024 byte block, 32blocks/file
> 
> David
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mario Charest [mailto:community-noreply@qnx.com]
> > Sent: September 20, 2010 9:01 AM
> > To: general-filesystems
> > Subject: qnx6f max file number
> >
> > Is it unrealistic or does it have some sort of negative impact to have
> > a 2TB disk with qnx6fs and specify something like -i 100M ( 100
> > millions) to mkqnx6fs ?
> >
> > By the way would be nice if the doc on mkqnx6fs would specify the
> > exact numbers use by the -T option.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > General
> > http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post67848
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> General
> http://community.qnx.com/sf/go/post67858
>