Quoting Davor Ocelic (suppressed): > > > > 1. Switch filesystems to XFS or ReiserFS for their tree-based > > > scheme. They don't degrade like ext2. > > > > > I like this idea. Are there any good reasons why I *shouldn't* switch to > > one of these filing systems? If not, then I guess this has to be the way to > > go with any new partitions? > > I use ext3 because of all the established tools that are available for it > (the stuff from e2fsprogs and e2tools packages, for example). > > Also, I never had the need to try it myself, but I hear that ext3 filesystems > mount with larger set of default options than xfs or reiserfs do. Mounting > ext3 filesystems with options equal to default reiser or xfs supposedly > achieves excellent performance. I am not sure that you are getting why we are talking about this -- we are talking specifically about directory lookup performance for many thousands of files in a single directory. I don't think anything has changed recently in the ext2/ext3 schema which addresses this. I personally have noticed slowdowns of systems when the number of files in a directory gets into the thousands. It is a very real problem that you need to think about if you have large file sets. I have personally always used the hashing scheme, partly because running directory listings on very large directory is difficult. But changing filesystems is a viable option. -- Mike Heins Perusion -- Expert Interchange Consulting http://www.perusion.com/ phone +1.765.647.1295 tollfree 800-949-1889 <suppressed> There's nothing sweeter than life nor more precious than time. -- Barney _______________________________________________ interchange-users mailing list suppressed http://www.icdevgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/interchange-users
Mail converted by mhonarc 2.6.15
This archive provided courtesy of JSW4.NET, Internet Hosting Services for Small Business.