On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 22:46:18 Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > I don't want to change the topic of discussion, but I *highly* recommend
> > you ***stop*** whatever it is you're doing that is creating such a
> > directory structure. Software which has to iterate through that
> > dir
Erik Trulsson([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.09 20:54:14 +0100:
> Besides, for most database applications I can think of, what you would
> need are lots of *files*, which do not have any special limitations other
> than the the total space and number of i-nodes on the filesystem.
> Even if you were usi
If you really think HAMMER accomplishes the same goals as ZFS, you are
sadly mistaken.
it will be OK to achieve the goals it is advertised to achieve.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ques
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:33:06PM -0600, Modulok wrote:
> >>Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want
> (let alone need) as many as 3 or more subdirectories in a single
> directory.
>
> "No one will ever need more than 640K of memory!"
Not quite the same thing.
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:55 PM, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:58:11PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
> >
> > Erik Trulsson writes:
> >
> > > > Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
> > > > If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:58:11PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Erik Trulsson writes:
>
> > > Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
> > > If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32
> > > bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or
> > > policy re
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:48:51PM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Erik Trulsson([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.09 17:53:14 +0100:
> > Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want
> > (let alone need) as many as 3 or more subdirectories in a single
> > directory.
>
> I've seen some
Erik Trulsson writes:
> >Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
> >If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32
> > bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or
> > policy reasons, and if so what are they?
>
> It probably could be expanded to
number of years. Hammer, the new FS for FreeBSDs is available for
DragonflyBSD.
i would like to see final (now still beta) version of hammer in action.
it's ADVERTISED features are great. but ZFS features was (and are)
ADVERTISED great too while we see the result.
Hammer would be great if it w
>>Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want
(let alone need) as many as 3 or more subdirectories in a single
directory.
"No one will ever need more than 640K of memory!"
Be careful.
-Modulok-
___
freebsd-questions@free
the limit is 32765, just because link count is 2 bytes wide and
each subdir adds two to base directory. you have to change to 2
level hierarchy.
Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32
bits? Or is it pos
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:09:17AM -0500, Dan wrote:
> Jeremy Chadwick([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.08 18:40:46 -0800:
> > I don't want to change the topic of discussion, but I *highly* recommend
> > you ***stop*** whatever it is you're doing that is creating such a
> > directory structure. Software
Erik Trulsson([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.09 17:53:14 +0100:
> Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want
> (let alone need) as many as 3 or more subdirectories in a single
> directory.
I've seen some Java apps that use the FS as the DB. Nothing wrong with
that. I
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:02:07AM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
>
> Wojciech Puchar writes:
>
> > the limit is 32765, just because link count is 2 bytes wide and
> > each subdir adds two to base directory. you have to change to 2
> > level hierarchy.
>
> Question (for anyone who has an inf
Jeremy Chadwick([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2008.11.08 18:40:46 -0800:
> I don't want to change the topic of discussion, but I *highly* recommend
> you ***stop*** whatever it is you're doing that is creating such a
> directory structure. Software which has to iterate through that
> directory using opendir(
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:02:07AM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar writes:
>
> > the limit is 32765, just because link count is 2 bytes wide and
> > each subdir adds two to base directory. you have to change to 2
> > level hierarchy.
>
> Question (for anyone who has an inform
Wojciech Puchar writes:
> the limit is 32765, just because link count is 2 bytes wide and
> each subdir adds two to base directory. you have to change to 2
> level hierarchy.
Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion):
If there any technical reason that couldn't be expa
With the implementation of UFS_DIRHASH the practical limit on the
size of directories is now a great deal larger. In particular
the slow down caused by linear search through the contents has been
but - try making (by shell script for example) empty files.
it creates it fast and rapidly slows a
Hi,
I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories within a single
directory.
This number will keep rising and I assume UFS2 has a limit to the number of
sub-directories in a single directory - can anyone tell me what it is?
make sure your kernel is compiled with
options
On Nov 9, 2008, at 12:18 AM, Ian wrote:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:10:46 Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:40:51AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi,
I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories
within a
single directory.
This number will keep rising and I assu
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
I don't want to change the topic of discussion, but I *highly* recommend
you ***stop*** whatever it is you're doing that is creating such a
directory structure. Software which has to iterate through that
directory using opendir() and readdir() will get slower and slower a
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:47:11AM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:35:21 +0100, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that this does not limit the number of files you can have in a single
> > directory, since normal files do not contain hardlinks to the parent
> > direc
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:47:11AM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:35:21 +0100, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Note that this does not limit the number of files you can have in a single
> > directory, since normal files do not contain hardlinks to the parent
> > direc
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 10:35:21 +0100, Erik Trulsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note that this does not limit the number of files you can have in a single
> directory, since normal files do not contain hardlinks to the parent
> directory, but there are of course limits to the total number of files an
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 10:35:21AM +0100, Erik Trulsson wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 06:40:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:40:51AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories within a
> > > singl
On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 06:40:46PM -0800, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:40:51AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories within a single
> > directory.
> > This number will keep rising and I assume UFS2 has a limi
The number of files and sub-directories is limited by the number
of available inodes which is fixed at the time you create the
file system (by -i argument to newfs(8)). Anyway, stick with
Jeremy's advise if you do not like trouble.
Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:
On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 13:10:46 Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:40:51AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories within a
> > single directory.
> > This number will keep rising and I assume UFS2 has a limit to the numbe
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:40:51AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories within a single
> directory.
> This number will keep rising and I assume UFS2 has a limit to the number of
> sub-directories in a single directory - can anyone tel
Hi,
I have a FreeBSD server that has about 10,500 subdirectories within a single
directory.
This number will keep rising and I assume UFS2 has a limit to the number of
sub-directories in a single directory - can anyone tell me what it is?
What about ZFS?
At some point I'll have to re-arrange thin
30 matches
Mail list logo
