From owner-freebsd-current Sun Apr 15 17:43:27 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from peter3.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [65.0.135.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F80D37B423 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:43:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f3G0hPM17529 for ; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:43:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F7D3811; Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:43:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: "Justin T. Gibbs" Cc: Doug Barton , Matt Dillon , "'current@freebsd.org'" Subject: Re: FW: Filesystem gets a huge performance boost In-Reply-To: <200104150505.f3F55ts00973@aslan.scsiguy.com> Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:43:24 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20010416004324.D6F7D3811@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "Justin T. Gibbs" wrote: > > I notice that this option is off by default. Can you give a general > >idea of when it should be enabled, when it should be disabled, and what bad > >things might result with it on? > > It consumes a full page per-directory even though the majority of > directories in a stock system are a small fraction of that size. It is my understanding that with the new directory layout strategies, this will be improved somewhat. ie: a single page is much more likely to cache up to 8 directories. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message