On Wednesday 19 May 2004 11:18 am, Matt Hamilton wrote:
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.
FWIW-- I did a few informal tests as well. Chunky "feels" a bit faster, but I didn't test with huge dataset, so I'm not sure about scalability. Chunky also seems to require a bit less disk space, e.g. virgin dirstorage is 26MB vs 21MB. Guess I'll play it safe and stick with bushy. Thanks for the input. -- Best regards, Ken Gunderson GPG Key-- 9F5179FD "Freedom begins between the ears." -- Edward Abbey