Ken Gunderson wrote:
I am unsure whether UFS2 would best utilize the "chunky" or "busy" options. The 64 bit pointers allow for up to 65K subdirs w/in a dir, correct? So the large number of subdirs under chunky format could be handled. Dirhash and dirpref can deal can cope with large numbers of files per directory, correct. But then doesn't UFS2 still use more linear model?
Any insights from the FBSD/filesystem gurus would be appreciated.
We use DirectoryStorage on UFS+softupdates on FreeBSD 4.x and use bushy. I did a few simple tests of bushy vs. chunky and didn't get any significant difference. Whether this holds true for UFS2 or not I don't know. -Matt -- Matt Hamilton matth@netsight.co.uk Netsight Internet Solutions, Ltd. Business Vision on the Internet http://www.netsight.co.uk +44 (0)117 9090901 Web Design | Zope/Plone Development & Consulting | Co-location | Hosting