I was wondering at what stage would I see a performance impact by having all these files in the same directory? If any. EXT4: theoretically limitless. Performance is a lot better for lots of files along with ext4 as they both use a binary search type algorithm for getting the file you want the others use a more linear one.
I store images for serving by a web server, and I have over , images in one directory on EXT3. I see no performance issues. Before setting this up, I did tests with k images in a directory, and randomly accessing files by name, and there was no significant slowdown with k over 10k images in the directory.
The only downside I see is that in order to sync the new ones with a second sever I have to run rsync over the whole directory, and can't just tell it to sync a sub directory containing the most recent thousand or so. The amount of files in a folder could theoretically be limitless. However, every time when the OS will access the specific folder to search for files, it will have to process all files in the folder.
With less than files, you might not notice any delays. But when you have tens of thousands of files in a single folder, a simple folder list command ls or dir could take way too long.
When these folders can be accessed through FTP, it will really be too slow Performance issues won't really depend on your OS but on your system processor speed, disk capacities and memory.
If you have that many files, you might want to combine them into a single archive, and use an archiving system that is optimized to hold a lot of data. This could be a ZIP file but better yet, store them as blobs in a database with the file name as primary key.
My rule of thumb is to split folders if there are more than files and the folder will be browsed i. As skaffman points out, the limits depend on the operating system. You're likely to be affected by limits on older OSes. I remember an old version of Solaris was limited to files per directory. The usual solution is to use some sort of hashing, i. Cyrus imap server splits users by an alphabetic hash:. The number of files you can create in a single directory is depended on the file system you are using.
If you are listing all files in the directory or searching, sorting, etc. Generally ext limits the number of files on your disc in general. You can't create more files then you have inodes in your inode table.
He is correct in suggesting reiserfs for more performance with many files. Folder with 10K images in any view List, Icon etc. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group.
Create a free Team What is Teams? Improve this answer. Community Bot 1 1 1 silver badge. Thank you. There'll be no GUIs as this is on a remote web server. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google. Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. The Overflow Blog. Podcast The first ten years of our programming lives. Upcoming Events.
Featured on Meta. Now live: A fully responsive profile. Candidate changes in Moderator Election — review your ballot. Essentially, I have a directory with almost a million files and I found that creating a new file in this directory took ages in the region of tens of seconds , which is not ideal at all for my purpose.
After some reading, and much research, I learnt that Ext3 stores directory indices in a flat table, and this causes much of the headache when a directory has many files in a directory.
There are a couple of options. One, restructure the directory so that it does not contain that many files.
0コメント