> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Big directory size
>
> Varshavchick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I had a directory with a lot of files (about 100 000), and naturally, the
> > size of the directory entry itself was big enough (about 1M). Now I've
>
:50 +
> From: Daniel Bye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Big directory size
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:45:16PM +0300, Varshavchick Alexander wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I had a directory with a lot of files (about 100 000), an
Varshavchick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I had a directory with a lot of files (about 100 000), and naturally, the
> size of the directory entry itself was big enough (about 1M). Now I've
> split all these files to different subdirectories, to increase the system
> performance. The maj
On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 02:45:16PM +0300, Varshavchick Alexander wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I had a directory with a lot of files (about 100 000), and naturally, the
> size of the directory entry itself was big enough (about 1M). Now I've
> split all these files to different subdirectories, to increase t
Hello,
I had a directory with a lot of files (about 100 000), and naturally, the
size of the directory entry itself was big enough (about 1M). Now I've
split all these files to different subdirectories, to increase the system
performance. The major directory entry size didn't change, however such
