[Zope] DirectoryStorage and UFS2

[Ken Gunderson]

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