From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 9 16:53:17 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE77E106564A for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:53:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E678FC0A for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 16:53:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-255-48-78.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.48.78]:62403 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KzDXH-0007g8-74 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:53:15 +0100 Received: (qmail 51594 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2008 17:53:14 +0100 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 9 Nov 2008 17:53:14 +0100 Received: (qmail 90016 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Nov 2008 17:53:14 +0100 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:53:14 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Robert Huff Message-ID: <20081109165314.GA89995@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109152835.N49145@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18711.2431.464472.977892@jerusalem.litteratus.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.48.78 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KzDXH-0007g8-74. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net 1KzDXH-0007g8-74 a7361226da2418dc2c5aecbb317f6a99 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UFS2 limits X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:53:17 -0000 On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:02:07AM -0500, Robert Huff wrote: > > Wojciech Puchar writes: > > > the limit is 32765, just because link count is 2 bytes wide and > > each subdir adds two to base directory. you have to change to 2 > > level hierarchy. > > Question (for anyone who has an informed opinion): > If there any technical reason that couldn't be expanded to 32 > bits? Or is it possible but not done for historical or > policy reasons, and if so what are they? It probably could be expanded to 32 bits if that was deemed useful. Doing that would of course require re-creating any existing filesystems since the on-disk format would change, which would be a PITA for users, but certainly possible. It is rare that anybody actually encounter this limit however. I would even say that if you have more than a couple of thousand entries in a single directory, then you are probably doing something wrong. Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want (let alone need) as many as 30000 or more subdirectories in a single directory. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se