Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Zhihui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu>, Steve Carlson <stevec@nbci.com>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FFS performance for large directories? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007311744410.14596-100000@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200008010033.RAA15725@usr07.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > A third thing is that FFS performs poor accessing /usr/ports. This has
> > something to do with how FFS layout directory inode (not file inode). The
> > book 4.4 BSD design and implementation explains this well. If fact, read
> > that book carefully, you can have better idea than you can get from a
> > mailing list. Good luck!
>
> This is because the tarball is packed up in the wrong order;
> change the packing order (breadth-first vs. depth-first),
> and the "ports problem" goes away. I have done this with the
> -T option to tar, and it works fine, so long as you have an
> accurate file. This ensures that there is no cache-busting
> on the dearchive, which is the source of the problem.
Actually I benchmarked this a while back and it didn't make a significant
difference.
Kris
--
In God we Trust -- all others must submit an X.509 certificate.
-- Charles Forsythe <forsythe@alum.mit.edu>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007311744410.14596-100000>