From owner-freebsd-fs Mon Jul 31 17:50: 8 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu [128.226.1.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B92CB37B61D for ; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:50:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu) Received: from sol.cs.binghamton.edu (sol.cs.binghamton.edu [128.226.123.100]) by bingnet2.cc.binghamton.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA00587; Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:49:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:46:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Zhihui Zhang To: Terry Lambert Cc: 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 > > 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. Good point. But what do you mean by saying "have an accurate file"? -Zhihui To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message