From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct  1 08:54:03 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C454016A41F;
	Sat,  1 Oct 2005 08:54:03 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz)
Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (eva.fit.vutbr.cz [147.229.10.14])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9F743D45;
	Sat,  1 Oct 2005 08:54:02 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz)
Received: from eva.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from xdivac02@eva.fit.vutbr.cz)
	(8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j918rxrC062121
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO);
	Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:53:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from xdivac02@localhost)
	by eva.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.4/8.13.3/Submit) id j918rwMp062120;
	Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:53:58 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:53:58 +0200
From: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
To: current@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20051001085358.GA62022@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.49 on 147.229.10.14
Cc: scottl@freebsd.org
Subject: 6.0R todo list - hash sizes
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:54:03 -0000

Hi,

scottl@ removed:
    <td>Nullfs (and perhaps other filesystems) use an absurdly small
     hash size that causes significant performance penalties.</td>

this item from 6.0R todo list. How was this solved? I didnt see any commits
to enlarge the hash values. Its still the same... why it was removed then?

thnx for answer

roman

p.s. the possible fix is to use desiredvnodes for the initialization of the
hash but desiredvnodes is commented to be historical cruft and should not
exist. Alhought a lot of code uses it.