I have a program that produces large number of small files (say, 10,000 files). After they are created, another script accesses them and processes one by one.
Questions:
does it matter, in terms of performance, how the files are organized (all in one directory or in multiple directories)
if so, then what is the optimal number of directories and files per dir?
I run Debian with ext4 file system
Related
Maximum number of files/folders on Linux?
https://serverfault.com/questions/104986/what-is-the-maximum-number-of-files-a-file-system-can-contain
10k files inside a single folder is not a problem on Ext4. It should have the dir_index option enabled by default, which indexes directories content using a btree-like structure to prevent performance issues.
To sum up, unless you create millions of files or use ext2/ext3, you shouldn't have to worry about system or FS performance issues.
That being said, shell tools and commands don't like to be called with a lot of files as parameter ( rm * for example) and may return you an error message saying something like 'too many arguments'. Look at this answer for what happens then.
Related
It's well known that in Windows a directory with too many files will have a terrible performance when you try to open one of them. I have a program that is to execute only in Linux (currently it's on Debian-Lenny, but I don't want to be specific about this distro) and writes many files to the same directory (which acts somewhat as a repository). By "many" I mean tens each day, meaning that after one year I expect to have something like 5000-10000 files. They are meant to be kept (once a file is created, it's never deleted) and it is assumed that the hard disk has the required capacity (if not, it should be upgraded). Those files have a wide range of sizes, from a few KB to tens of MB (but not much more than that). The names are always numeric values, incrementally generated.
I'm worried about long-term performance degradation, so I'd ask:
Is it OK to write all to the same directory? Or should I think about creating a set of subdirectories for every X files?
Should I require a specific filesystem to be used for such directory?
What would be the more robust alternative? Specialized filesystem? Which?
Any other considerations/recomendations?
It depends very much on the file system.
ext2 and ext3 have a hard limit of 32,000 files per directory. This is somewhat more than you are asking about, but close enough that I would not risk it. Also, ext2 and ext3 will perform a linear scan every time you access a file by name in the directory.
ext4 supposedly fixes these problems, but I cannot vouch for it personally.
XFS was designed for this sort of thing from the beginning and will work well even if you put millions of files in the directory.
So if you really need a huge number of files, I would use XFS or maybe ext4.
Note that no file system will make "ls" run fast if you have an enormous number of files (unless you use "ls -f"), since "ls" will read the entire directory and the sort the names. A few tens of thousands is probably not a big deal, but a good design should scale beyond what you think you need at first glance...
For the application you describe, I would probably create a hierarchy instead, since it is hardly any additional coding or mental effort for someone looking at it. Specifically, you can name your first file "00/00/01" instead of "000001".
If you use a filesystem without directory-indexing, then it is a very bad idea to have lots of files in one directory (say, > 5000).
However, if you've got directory indexing (which is enabled by default on more recent distros in ext3), then it's not such a problem.
However, it does break quite a few tools to have many files in one directory (For example, "ls" will stat() all the files, which takes a long time). You can probably easily split it into subdirectories.
But don't overdo it. Don't use many levels of nested subdirectory unnecessarily, this just uses lots of inodes and makes metadata operations slower.
I've seen more cases of "too many levels of nested directories" than I've seen of "too many files per directory".
The best solution I have for you (rather than quoting some values from a micro-filesystem-benchmark) is to test it yourself.
Just use the file system of your choice. Create some random test data for 100, 1000 and 10000 entries. Then, measure the time it takes your system to perform the action you are concerned about time-wise (opening a file, reading 100 random files, etc).
Then, you compare the times and use the best solution (put them all into one directory; put each year into a new directory; put each month of each year into a new directory).
I do not know in detail what you are using, but creating a directory is a one time (and probably quite easy) operation, so why not do it instead of changing filesystems or trying some other more time-consuming stuff?
In addition to the other answers, if the huge directory is managed by a known application or library, you could consider replacing it by something else, e.g:
a GDBM index file; GDBM is a very common library providing indexed file, which associates to an arbitrary key (a sequence of bytes) an arbitrary value (another sequence of byte).
perhaps a table inside a database like MySQL or PostGresQL. Be careful about indexing.
some other way to index data
The advantages of the above approaches include:
space performance for a large collection of small items (less than a kilobyte each). A filesystem need an inode for each item. Indexed systems may have much less granularity
time performance: you don't access the filesystem for every item
scalability: indexed approaches are designed to fit large needs: either a GDBM index file, or a database can handle many millions of items. I'm not sure your directory approach will scale as easily.
The disadvantage of such approach is that they don't show as files. But as MarkR's answer remind you, ls is behaving quite poorly on huge directories.
If you stick to a filesystem approach, many software using large number of files are organizing them in subdirectories like aa/ ab/ ac/ ...ay/ az/ ba/ ... bz/ ...
Is it OK to write all to the same directory? Or should I think about creating a set of subdirectories for every X files?
In my experience the only slow down a directory with many files will give is if you do things such as getting a listing with ls. But that mostly is the fault of ls, there are faster ways of listing the contents of a directory using tools such as echo and find (see below).
Should I require a specific filesystem to be used for such directory?
I don't think so with regards to amount of files in one directory. I am sure some filesystems perform better with many small files in one dir whilst others do a better job on huge files. It's also a matter of personal taste, akin to vi vs. emacs. I prefer to use the XFS filesystem so that'd be my advice. :-)
What would be the more robust alternative? Specialized filesystem? Which?
XFS is definitely robust and fast, I use it in many places, as boot partition, oracle tablespaces, space for source control you name it. It lacks a bit on delete performance, but otherwise it's a safe bet. Plus it supports growing the size whilst it is still mounted (that's a requirement actually). That is you just delete the partition, recreate it at the same starting block and whatever ending block that's larger than the original partition, then you run xfs_growfs on it with the filesystem mounted.
Any other considerations/recomendations?
See above. With the addition that having 5000 to 10000 files in one directory should not be a problem. In practice it doesn't arbitrarily slow down the filesystem as far as I know, except for utilities such as "ls" and "rm". But you could do:
find * | xargs echo
find * | xargs rm
The benefit that a directory tree with files, such as directory "a" for file names starting with an "a" etc., will give you is that of looks, it looks more organised. But then you have less of an overview... So what you're trying to do should be fine. :-)
I neglected to say you could consider using something called "sparse files" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparse_file
It is bad for performance to have a huge number of files in one directory. Checking for the existence of a file will typically require an O(n) scan of the directory. Creating a new file will require that same scan with the directory locked to prevent the directory state changing before the new file is created. Some file systems may be smarter about this (using B-trees or whatever), but the fewer ties your implementation has to the filesystem's strengths and weaknesses the better for long term maintenance. Assume someone might decide to run the app on a network filesystem (storage appliance or even cloud storage) someday. Huge directories are a terrible idea when using network storage.
I'm developing a LAMP online store, which will allow admins to upload multiple images for each item.
My concern is - right off the bat there will be 20000 items meaning roughly 60000 images.
Questions:
What is the maximum number of files and/or directories on Linux?
What is the usual way of handling this situation (best practice)?
My idea was to make a directory for each item, based on its unique ID, but then I'd still have 20000 directories in a main uploads directory, and it will grow indefinitely as old items won't be removed.
Thanks for any help.
ext[234] filesystems have a fixed maximum number of inodes; every file or directory requires one inode. You can see the current count and limits with df -i. For example, on a 15GB ext3 filesystem, created with the default settings:
Filesystem Inodes IUsed IFree IUse% Mounted on
/dev/xvda 1933312 134815 1798497 7% /
There's no limit on directories in particular beyond this; keep in mind that every file or directory requires at least one filesystem block (typically 4KB), though, even if it's a directory with only a single item in it.
As you can see, though, 80,000 inodes is unlikely to be a problem. And with the dir_index option (enablable with tune2fs), lookups in large directories aren't too much of a big deal. However, note that many administrative tools (such as ls or rm) can have a hard time dealing with directories with too many files in them. As such, it's recommended to split your files up so that you don't have more than a few hundred to a thousand items in any given directory. An easy way to do this is to hash whatever ID you're using, and use the first few hex digits as intermediate directories.
For example, say you have item ID 12345, and it hashes to 'DEADBEEF02842.......'. You might store your files under /storage/root/d/e/12345. You've now cut the number of files in each directory by 1/256th.
If your server's filesystem has the dir_index feature turned on (see tune2fs(8) for details on checking and turning on the feature) then you can reasonably store upwards of 100,000 files in a directory before the performance degrades. (dir_index has been the default for new filesystems for most of the distributions for several years now, so it would only be an old filesystem that doesn't have the feature on by default.)
That said, adding another directory level to reduce the number of files in a directory by a factor of 16 or 256 would drastically improve the chances of things like ls * working without over-running the kernel's maximum argv size.
Typically, this is done by something like:
/a/a1111
/a/a1112
...
/b/b1111
...
/c/c6565
...
i.e., prepending a letter or digit to the path, based on some feature you can compute off the name. (The first two characters of md5sum or sha1sum of the file name is one common approach, but if you have unique object ids, then 'a'+ id % 16 is easy enough mechanism to determine which directory to use.)
60000 is nothing, 20000 as well. But you should put group these 20000 by any means in order to speed up access to them. Maybe in groups of 100 or 1000, by taking the number of the directory and dividing it by 100, 500, 1000, whatever.
E.g., I have a project where the files have numbers. I group them in 1000s, so I have
id/1/1332
id/3/3256
id/12/12334
id/350/350934
You actually might have a hard limit - some systems have 32 bit inodes, so you are limited to a number of 2^32 per file system.
In addition of the general answers (basically "don't bother that much", and "tune your filesystem", and "organize your directory with subdirectories containing a few thousand files each"):
If the individual images are small (e.g. less than a few kilobytes), instead of putting them in a folder, you could also put them in a database (e.g. with MySQL as a BLOB) or perhaps inside a GDBM indexed file. Then each small item won't consume an inode (on many filesystems, each inode wants at least some kilobytes). You could also do that for some threshold (e.g. put images bigger than 4kbytes in individual files, and smaller ones in a data base or GDBM file). Of course, don't forget to backup your data (and define a backup stategy).
The year is 2014. I come back in time to add this answer.
Lots of big/small files? You can use Amazon S3 and other alternatives based on Ceph like DreamObjects, where there are no directory limits to worry about.
I hope this helps someone decide from all the alternatives.
md5($id) ==> 0123456789ABCDEF
$file_path = items/012/345/678/9AB/CDE/F.jpg
1 node = 4096 subnodes (fast)
I'm writing an app that needs to store lots of files up to approx 10 million.
They are presently named with a UUID and are going to be around 4MB each but always the same size. Reading and writing from/to these files will always be sequential.
2 main questions I am seeking answers for:
1) Which filesystem would be best for this. XFS or ext4?
2) Would it be necessary to store the files beneath subdirectories in order to reduce the numbers of files within a single directory?
For question 2, I note that people have attempted to discover the XFS limit for number of files you can store in a single directory and haven't found the limit which exceeds millions. They noted no performance problems. What about under ext4?
Googling around with people doing similar things, some people suggested storing the inode number as a link to the file instead of the filename for performance (this is in a database index. which I'm also using). However, I don't see a usable API for opening the file by inode number. That seemed to be more of a suggestion for improving performance under ext3 which I am not intending to use by the way.
What are the ext4 and XFS limits? What performance benefits are there from one over the other and could you see a reason to use ext4 over XFS in my case?
You should definitely store the files in subdirectories.
EXT4 and XFS both use efficient lookup methods for file names, but if you ever need to run tools over the directories such as ls or find you will be very glad to have the files in manageable chunks of 1,000 - 10,000 files.
The inode number thing is to improve the sequential access performance of the EXT filesystems. The metadata is stored in inodes and if you access these inodes out of order then the metadata accesses are randomized. By reading your files in inode order you make the metadata access sequential too.
Modern filesystems will let you store 10 million files all in the same directory if you like. But tools (ls and its friends) will not work well.
I'd recommend putting a single level of directories, a fixed number, perhaps 1,000 directories, and putting the files in there (10,000 files is tolerable to the shell, and "ls").
I've seen systems which create many levels of directories, this is truly unnecessary and increases inode consumption and makes traversal slower.
10M files should not really be a problem either, unless you need to do bulk operations on them.
I expect you will need to prune old files, but something like "tmpwatch" will probably work just fine with 10M files.
I wish to understand the way kernel works when a user/app tries to create a file in a directorty.
The background - We have a java applicaiton which consumes messages over JMS, processes it and then writes the XML to an outbound queue+a local directory. Yesterday we obeserved unsual delays in writing to the directory. On 'ls|wc -l' we found >300,000 files in there. Did a quick strace on the process and found it full of mutex calls (More than 3/4 calls in the strace were mutex).
So i thought that new file creation is taking time becasue the system has to every time check certain things (e.g name of files to make sure that the new file with a specific name can be created) amongst 300,000 files and then create a file.
I cleared the directory and the applicaiton resumed to normal service levels.
My questions
Was my analysis correct (It seems cuz the app started working fine after a clear down)?
More imporatant, how does the kernel work when you try to creat a new file in directory.
Can the abnormal number of mutex calls be attributed to the high number of files in the directory?
Many thanks
J
Please read about the Linux Filesystem, i-nodes and d-nodes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inode_pointer_structure
The file system is organized into fixed-sized blocks. If your directory is relatively small, it fits in the direct blocks and things are fast. If your directory is not too big, it fits in the direct blocks and some indirect blocks, and is still reasonably fast. If your directory becomes too big, it spills into double indirect blocks and becomes slow.
Actual sizes depend on file system and kernel configuration.
Rule of thumb is to keep the directory under 12 blocks, depending on your block size. Many systems use 8K blocks; a fast directory is under 98,304 bytes.
A file entry is something like 16*4 bytes in size (IIRC), so plan on no more than 1500 files per directory as a practical upper limit.
Directories with large numbers of entries are often slow - how slow depends on the underlying filesystem.
The common solution is to create a hierarchy of directories, so each dir only has a few hundred entries.
Mutex system calls are a result of the application (probably something in the JVM or the Java libraries) making mutex calls.
Synchronisation internal to the kernel you will not see via strace, as this only examines system calls themselves.
A directory with lots of files should not become inefficient if you are using a filesystem which uses directory indexes; most now do (ext3 does optionally but it's normally enabled nowadays).
Non-indexed directories (like those used on the bad old filesystems - ext2, vfat etc) get really bad with lots of files, and you'll see the "open" system call taking a lot longer.
If there are like 1,000,000 individual files (mostly 100k in size) in a single directory, flatly (no other directories and files in them), is there going to be any compromises in efficiency or disadvantages in any other possible ways?
ARG_MAX is going to take issue with that... for instance, rm -rf * (while in the directory) is going to say "too many arguments". Utilities that want to do some kind of globbing (or a shell) will have some functionality break.
If that directory is available to the public (lets say via ftp, or web server) you may encounter additional problems.
The effect on any given file system depends entirely on that file system. How frequently are these files accessed, what is the file system? Remember, Linux (by default) prefers keeping recently accessed files in memory while putting processes into swap, depending on your settings. Is this directory served via http? Is Google going to see and crawl it? If so, you might need to adjust VFS cache pressure and swappiness.
Edit:
ARG_MAX is a system wide limit to how many arguments can be presented to a program's entry point. So, lets take 'rm', and the example "rm -rf *" - the shell is going to turn '*' into a space delimited list of files which in turn becomes the arguments to 'rm'.
The same thing is going to happen with ls, and several other tools. For instance, ls foo* might break if too many files start with 'foo'.
I'd advise (no matter what fs is in use) to break it up into smaller directory chunks, just for that reason alone.
My experience with large directories on ext3 and dir_index enabled:
If you know the name of the file you want to access, there is almost no penalty
If you want to do operations that need to read in the whole directory entry (like a simple ls on that directory) it will take several minutes for the first time. Then the directory will stay in the kernel cache and there will be no penalty anymore
If the number of files gets too high, you run into ARG_MAX et al problems. That basically means that wildcarding (*) does not always work as expected anymore. This is only if you really want to perform an operation on all the files at once
Without dir_index however, you are really screwed :-D
Most distros use Ext3 by default, which can use b-tree indexing for large directories.
Some of distros have this dir_index feature enabled by default in others you'd have to enable it yourself. If you enable it, there's no slowdown even for millions of files.
To see if dir_index feature is activated do (as root):
tune2fs -l /dev/sdaX | grep features
To activate dir_index feature (as root):
tune2fs -O dir_index /dev/sdaX
e2fsck -D /dev/sdaX
Replace /dev/sdaX with partition for which you want to activate it.
When you accidently execute "ls" in that directory, or use tab completion, or want to execute "rm *", you'll be in big trouble. In addition, there may be performance issues depending on your file system.
It's considered good practice to group your files into directories which are named by the first 2 or 3 characters of the filenames, e.g.
aaa/
aaavnj78t93ufjw4390
aaavoj78trewrwrwrwenjk983
aaaz84390842092njk423
...
abc/
abckhr89032423
abcnjjkth29085242nw
...
...
The obvious answer is the folder will be extremely difficult for humans to use long before any technical limit, (time taken to read the output from ls for one, their are dozens of other reasons) Is there a good reason why you can't split into sub folders?
Not every filesystem supports that many files.
On some of them (ext2, ext3, ext4) it's very easy to hit inode limit.
I've got a host with 10M files in a directory. (don't ask)
The filesystem is ext4.
It takes about 5 minutes to
ls
One limitation I've found is that my shell script to read the files (because AWS snapshot restore is a lie and files aren't present till first read) wasn't able to handle the argument list so I needed to do two passes. Firstly construct a file list with find (wholename in case you want to do partial matches)
find /path/to_dir/ -wholename '*.ldb'| tee filenames.txt
then secondly read from a the file containing filenames and read all files. (with limited parallelism)
while read -r line; do
if test "$(jobs | wc -l)" -ge 10; then
wait -n
fi
{
#do something with 10x fanout
} &
done < filenames.txt
Posting here in case anyone finds the specific work-around useful when working with too many files.