From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 19 01:16:08 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97F6616A4CE for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 01:16:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from koyukuk.teamcool.net (koyukuk.teamcool.net [208.39.216.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B6143D2D for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 01:16:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kgunders@teamcool.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.teamcool.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B094110B7 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:32:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from cochise.teamcool.net (unknown [192.168.1.57]) by koyukuk.teamcool.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB2DA10B31 for ; Wed, 19 May 2004 02:32:41 -0600 (MDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" From: Ken Gunderson To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 02:22:57 -0600 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200405190222.57924.kgunders@teamcool.net> Subject: ufs2 file system and zope/zeo directorystorage q X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 08:16:08 -0000 Howdy: I'd have a Zope/Zeo site that I'd like to set up to use DirectoryStorage. DirectoryStorage author states: bushy If you are using a filesystem that is inefficient with directories containing larger than a few hundred items. This is optimal for most conventional filesystems, such as ext2 on linux. In this format each object is given its own directory nested inside 8 levels of subdirectory. Each revision of an object has its own file in that directory. chunky If you are using a filesystem that is most efficient with directories containing tens of thousands of subdirectories, or hundreds of thousands of files. This is optimal for filesystems such as reiser3 or JFS on linux. In this format, one subdirectory is shared by up to 65000 objects. That subdirectory is nested inside 4 levels of subdirectory. I am unsure whether UFS2 would best utilize the "chunky" or "busy" options. The 64 bit pointers allow for up to 65K subdirs w/in a dir, correct? So the large number of subdirs under chunky format could be handled. Dirhash and dirpref can deal can cope with large numbers of files per directory, correct. But then doesn't UFS2 still use more linear model? Any insights from the filesystem gurus would be appreciated. Please 'cc, as I am not subscribed to questions. TIA-- -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson GPG Key-- 9F5179FD "Freedom begins between the ears." -- Edward Abbey