Re: UFS2 limits
- From: Erik Trulsson <ertr1013@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2008 21:08:10 +0100
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:33:06PM -0600, Modulok wrote:
(let alone need) as many as 30000 or more subdirectories in a singlePersonally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want
"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
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.
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
freebsd-questions@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Prev by Date: Re: UFS2 limits
- Next by Date: Sluggish scheduling during a long disk copy
- Previous by thread: Re: UFS2 limits
- Next by thread: Re: UFS2 limits