Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 15:22:59 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: current@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: 6.0R todo list - hash sizes Message-ID: <20051002192259.GA37178@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20051002095828.GA51218@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <20051001085358.GA62022@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20051001154628.GA64006@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051002095828.GA51218@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 11:58:28AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:46:28AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > > > Hi, > > >=20 > > > scottl@ removed: > > > <td>Nullfs (and perhaps other filesystems) use an absurdly small > > > hash size that causes significant performance penalties.</td> > > >=20 > > > this item from 6.0R todo list. How was this solved? I didnt see any c= ommits > > > to enlarge the hash values. Its still the same... why it was removed = then? > >=20 > > It was an incorrect suggestion on my part - it turns out this was not > > the cause of the performance penalties, and Jeff fixed them long ago. > >=20 > > Kris > >=20 >=20 > anyway - what sense does it make to have hash of size 4 entries? (fdescfs= has > this for example) It doesn't cause any performance penalty I can measure. Kris --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDQDOSWry0BWjoQKURAk5TAKC8c3cuep3+k2rR4iR+xvznohTqFgCgivk+ OUVOAFH7+pX/pnOzTYOAC20= =PkqM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PNTmBPCT7hxwcZjr--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051002192259.GA37178>