From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 9 20:08:12 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 3AF841065688 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:08:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net (ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net [80.76.149.212]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC24B8FC24 for ; Sun, 9 Nov 2008 20:08:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from erikt@midgard.homeip.net) Received: from c83-255-48-78.bredband.comhem.se ([83.255.48.78]:56302 helo=falcon.midgard.homeip.net) by ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net with esmtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KzGZu-0006Ar-69 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 21:08:11 +0100 Received: (qmail 52709 invoked from network); 9 Nov 2008 21:08:10 +0100 Received: from owl.midgard.homeip.net (10.1.5.7) by falcon.midgard.homeip.net with ESMTP; 9 Nov 2008 21:08:10 +0100 Received: (qmail 90967 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Nov 2008 21:08:10 +0100 Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:08:10 +0100 From: Erik Trulsson To: Modulok Message-ID: <20081109200810.GC90867@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <50261.1226194851@people.net.au> <20081109024046.GB27423@icarus.home.lan> <20081109160917.GA4223@ourbrains.org> <20081109180331.GA46147@icarus.home.lan> <64c038660811091033r1df9c4e6yc1123e714df9ccf4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <64c038660811091033r1df9c4e6yc1123e714df9ccf4@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Originating-IP: 83.255.48.78 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1KzGZu-0006Ar-69. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp01.sth.basefarm.net 1KzGZu-0006Ar-69 b1f8d9bf4bdadbaf8c7e0df77dc48519 Cc: Robert Huff , 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 20:08:12 -0000 On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:33:06PM -0600, Modulok wrote: > >>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. > > "No one will ever need more than 640K of memory!" Not quite the same thing. One major problem with having lots of entries in a directory is for humans using it (who have not become significantly faster or more capable over the recent decades.) Having lots of entries in a single directory is simply very unwieldy. There are is a reason why people invented hierarchichal files systems with directories and sub-directories, you know. For those situations where the directory is not intended to be looked at by a human, but only by programs, then there are more efficient ways of storing the data if you need that many entries. (A real database system, for example.) Besides, most (all?) of the situations where one might concievably want many entries in a single directory, what one would usually want is lots of files, not lots of sub-directories - once you start using sub-directories, you might as well use more than a single level of them. -- Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se