From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct 22 03:13:22 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7FA31065675;
	Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:13:22 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org
	[IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36])
	by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 492011507AF;
	Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:13:22 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <4EA234D1.7000805@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:13:21 -0700
From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>
Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64;
	rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>
References: <4E97FEDD.7060205@quip.cz> <j7938v$66s$1@dough.gmane.org>
	<4EA19203.5050503@quip.cz> <4EA2277B.5080306@FreeBSD.org>
	<20111022030403.GA176@icarus.home.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20111022030403.GA176@icarus.home.lan>
X-Enigmail-Version: undefined
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: dirhash and dynamic memory allocation
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
	<mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 03:13:23 -0000

On 10/21/2011 20:04, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 07:16:27PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:

>> Isn't that what vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize is for? I think given that there
>> is a lot more memory in modern systems setting that higher by default is
>> probably a good idea. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what that knob does?
> 
> I believe the function of that sysctl is different.  It's not the
> "minimum amount of dirhash memory to retain", it's:
> 
> $ sysctl -d vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize
> vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize: minimum directory size in bytes for which to use hashed lookup

Ah, silly me. I'm so used to 'sysctl -d' not working that I didn't even
try it this time. Thanks for setting me straight.

In that case I agree with the OP that a knob for minimum setting would
be desirable.


Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/