Billion-files File Systems (BfFS): A Comparison · HackerPapers discussions

Billion-files File Systems (BfFS): A Comparison — HN submission

Fri, 31 Jan 2025 06:13:46 GMT

Billion-Files File Systems (BfFS): A Comparison

2 points; 1 discussion reply on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Billion-files File Systems (BfFS): A Comparison — mentioned by starspangled

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 04:40:10 GMT

From this paper https://arxiv.org/html/2408.01805v1 (2024) > EXT4 is the general-purpose filesystem for a majority of Linux distributions and gets installed as the default. However, it is unable to accommodate one billion files by default due to a small number of inodes available, typically set at 240 million files or folders, created during installation. Which is interesting. I knew EXT2/3/4 had inode bitmaps, but I haven't been paying them much attention for the past decade. Slightly surprised they haven't added an option for dynamic allocation, OTOH inodes are small compared with storage…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Billion-files File Systems (BfFS): A Comparison — mentioned by starspangled

Fri, 24 Jan 2025 04:36:46 GMT

XFS is well regarded. It is kind of a second-generation of UINX filesystem that was designed from ground up with journaling and extents and btrees and xattrs. EXT4 is well regarded too, it has similar goodies now but it evolved from a first-generation stile without journaling and with block (not extent) tracking, primitive kinds of trees implemented as N-indirect arrays, etc. Whether that really matters is debatable, these days I think it's well acknowledged that you have to evolve and adapt to new features and clean redesigns aren't necessarily better (XFS has gone through a bunch of new…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.