Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:53:14 +0100
From:      Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@student.uu.se>
To:        Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: UFS2 limits
Message-ID:  <20081109165314.GA89995@owl.midgard.homeip.net>
In-Reply-To: <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
References:  <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109152835.N49145@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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 32 bits if that was deemed useful.
Doing that would of course require re-creating any existing filesystems
since the on-disk format would change, which would be a PITA for users,
but certainly possible.

It is rare that anybody actually encounter this limit however.  I would
even say that if you have more than a couple of thousand entries in a single
directory, then you are probably doing something wrong.

Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want
(let alone need) as many as 30000 or more subdirectories in a single
directory.




-- 
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013@student.uu.se



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081109165314.GA89995>