Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 08:46:11 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> To: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, dillon@apollo.backplane.com Subject: Re: tmpfs .. ? Message-ID: <99Dec7.083829est.40327@border.alcanet.com.au> In-Reply-To: <199912062023.MAA44565@pau-amma.whistle.com> References: <199912061813.KAA70974@apollo.backplane.com> <199912062023.MAA44565@pau-amma.whistle.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1999-Dec-07 07:23:49 +1100, David Wolfskill wrote: >>Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:13:50 -0800 (PST) >>From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> > >> The actual problem is sendmail's constant *rescanning* of the directory. Which I forgot about :-(. >To the extent that the directory is populated, yes. (Scanning an empty >directory isn't an overwhelmingly resource-intensive operation.) Not quite. UFS directories only shrink when a new entry is created and free blocks exist at the end. This means there can be a large number of emply blocks that need to be scanned. (The worst case is when all the files in a large directory are deleted - the directory is empty, but hasn't shrunk). [domain-specific queue directories] >I submit that having sendmail use the separate queue directories in this >fashion is rather more beneficial than post-processing the queue. :-) It would be interesting to see a comparison of the schemes under heavy load + failure conditions. I think Matt's approach has the advantage of needing less tuning. Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?99Dec7.083829est.40327>