On Saturday 16 June 2007 03:47, Daniel Brown wrote: > Once again, this doesn't matter so much for per-directory (though > listing will take longer, as I think I mentioned) as it does the > filesystem mount.
Several years ago, having say 3000+ files in single directory on ext2 would mean that a simple 'ls -al' takes several orders of magnitude longer to perform than on a directory with just several hundred files. As I haven't used ext2/3 for ages I don't know whether the same is still true today. > The ext2/ext3 filesystems were made for these > reasons, especially with journaling like ReiserFS, XFS, et cetera > (which is a completely different bag of nuts). Not sure what point you're trying to make here, but, of the common filesystems for linux, ext2/3 is the absolute slowest (by far) when you have a large number of files in a directory. -- Crayon -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
