Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 26 Mar 2005 23:08:06 +0100
From:      "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
To:        David Schultz <das@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: UFS Subdirectory limit. 
Message-ID:  <17693.1111874886@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 26 Mar 2005 16:30:48 EST." <20050326213048.GA33703@VARK.MIT.EDU> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20050326213048.GA33703@VARK.MIT.EDU>, David Schultz writes:
>On Fri, Mar 25, 2005, Scott Long wrote:
>> David Schultz wrote:
>> >On Sat, Mar 26, 2005, David Malone wrote:
>> >
>> >>There was a discussion on comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc about two weeks
>> >>ago, where someone had an application that used about 150K
>> >>subdirectories of a single directory. They wanted to move this
>> >>application to FreeBSD, but discovered that UFS is limited to 32K
>> >>subdirectories, because UFS's link count field is a signed 16 bit
>> >>quantity. Rewriting the application wasn't an option for them.

Has anybody here wondered how much searching a 150K directory would
suck performance wise ?

I realize that with dir-hashing and vfs-cache it is not as bad as it
used to be, but I still think it will be unpleasant performance wise.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.


Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17693.1111874886>