From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 30 18:10:38 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2CA106564A for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:10:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vogelke@hcst.com) Received: from beta.hcst.com (beta.hcst.com [192.52.183.241]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504848FC15 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:10:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vogelke@hcst.com) Received: from beta.hcst.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by beta.hcst.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id n6UIAbgP032143 for ; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:10:37 -0400 Received: (from vogelke@localhost) by beta.hcst.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n6UIAb5b032142; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:10:37 -0400 Received: by kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil (Postfix, from userid 32768) id 65E33B7E5; Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:43:54 -0400 (EDT) To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-reply-to: <4A6C071A.3020800@infracaninophile.co.uk> (message from Matthew Seaman on Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:34:50 +0100) Organization: Oasis Systems Inc. X-Disclaimer: I don't speak for the USAF or Oasis. X-GPG-ID: 1024D/711752A0 2006-06-27 Karl Vogel X-GPG-Fingerprint: 56EB 6DBF 4224 C953 F417 CC99 4C7C 7D46 7117 52A0 Message-Id: <20090730164354.65E33B7E5@kev.msw.wpafb.af.mil> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:43:54 -0400 (EDT) From: vogelke+unix@pobox.com (Karl Vogel) Subject: Re: limit to number of files seen by ls? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: vogelke+unix@pobox.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:10:38 -0000 >> Karl Vogel wrote: K> The main reason I stick with 1000 is because directories are read K> linearly unless you're using something like ReiserFS... >> On Sun, 26 Jul 2009 08:34:50 +0100, >> Matthew Seaman said: M> You mean filesystems like FreeBSD UFS2 with DIRHASH? The problem with M> linear time scanning of directory contents has been solved for awhile... Sure, that's why I said "something like". Not everyone is using the latest and greatest, especially if you have anything to do with the public sector. It's not unusual to see people using servers that are 8-10 years old and run around the clock, and they can't upgrade because they're not allowed the downtime. I'm not saying we should act like everyone's using the moral equivalent of FreeBSD 2.2.7. I am saying that if you have a design decision to make, you'll solve more problems than you cause if you add the extra 2-3 lines of code to hash a huge directory into several smaller ones. -- Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company Since we have to speak well of the dead, let's knock them while they're alive. --John Sloan