login
Header Space

 
 

Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Kyle Rose <krose@...>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...>, <linux-nfs@...>
Date: Friday, March 7, 2008 - 4:42 pm

On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 15:09 -0500, Kyle Rose wrote:

Newer versions of 'mount' should use the text-based interface.


The size of the actual READDIRPLUS requests is completely unaffected by
your patch. Your change actually means that the client will continue to
use READDIRPLUS on very large directories instead of falling back to
readdir.
The reason for falling back to readdir is that value of readdirplus
tends to decrease with larger directories as the cost of caching all
those dentries, attributes and filehandles both on the client and the
server goes up.

If you want a faster readdir(), you will find that splitting those huge
directories up into smaller subdirs is an alternative solution that
tends to scale much better on both client and server.


Having hundreds of mount options for minor tweaks is not an acceptable
practice. Each mount option needs to be abundantly justified.

Since we're talking about what is really a quite arbitrary limit, I can
certainly see an argument for why we might want a way to change it, but
I'm still not convinced that we need to be setting this parameter at the
mountpoint level.

Cheers
  Trond

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
READDIRPLUS max mount option, Kyle Rose, (Fri Mar 7, 3:37 pm)
Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option, Trond Myklebust, (Fri Mar 7, 3:59 pm)
Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option, Kyle Rose, (Fri Mar 7, 4:09 pm)
Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option, Trond Myklebust, (Fri Mar 7, 4:42 pm)
Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option, Kyle Rose, (Fri Mar 7, 5:04 pm)
Re: READDIRPLUS max mount option, Jan Engelhardt, (Sun Mar 9, 12:16 pm)
speck-geostationary