Martin Schlemmer posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, excerpted below, on Tue, 10 May 2005 11:02:07 +0200:
> Problem with flat tree, is the search times might then suck even more, as > last I heard, too many dirs/files in one directory have a huge speed > penalty. Yeah, sure, for ext2/3, but all those small files would suck big time in ext2/3 anyway. Reiserfs doesn't have either issue, and should be perfect for portage trees, even for those who still think the reliability isn't there (I've been /very/ happy with it here, since the data=ordered default went into the kernel for reiserfs, even when I had defective memory and was hard-locking fairly frequently due to that), because portage trees are a simple sync away from replacing anything lost. I never remember which one it is, but either jfs or xfs has packed files as a feature as well, IIRC, so the small file sizes works, altho I believe it'd still have issues with high file-count dirs. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
