From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Jul 31 17:45:41 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.ORG [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042AA37BD81; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:45:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id RAA14704; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:45:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.freebsd.org: kris owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:45:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Kris Kennaway To: Terry Lambert Cc: Zhihui Zhang , Steve Carlson , freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FFS performance for large directories? In-Reply-To: <200008010033.RAA15725@usr07.primenet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message