>> Karl Vogel wrote:
K> The main reason I stick with 1000 is because directories are read
K> linearly unless you're using something like ReiserFS...
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:34:50 +0100,
>> Matthew Seaman <m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> said:
M> You mean filesystems like FreeBSD UFS2 with DIRHASH? The problem with
M> linear time scanning of directory contents has been solved for awhile...
Sure, that's why I said "something like". Not everyone is using the
latest and greatest, especially if you have anything to do with the
public sector. It's not unusual to see people using servers that
are 8-10 years old and run around the clock, and they can't upgrade
because they're not allowed the downtime.
I'm not saying we should act like everyone's using the moral equivalent
of FreeBSD 2.2.7. I am saying that if you have a design decision to
make, you'll solve more problems than you cause if you add the extra
2-3 lines of code to hash a huge directory into several smaller ones.
--
Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company
Since we have to speak well of the dead, let's knock them while they're alive.
--John Sloan
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
