From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 2 May 2001 06:23:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 2 May 2001 06:23:11 -0400 Received: from obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de ([134.109.132.55]:63992 "EHLO obelix.hrz.tu-chemnitz.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 May 2001 06:22:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 12:22:50 +0200 From: Ingo Oeser To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Maximum files per Directory Message-ID: <20010502122250.J3305@nightmaster.csn.tu-chemnitz.de> In-Reply-To: <272800000.988750082@hades> <9cnbs0$uk3$1@cesium.transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <9cnbs0$uk3$1@cesium.transmeta.com>; from hpa@zytor.com on Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:03:44PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 03:03:44PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Bit of both. You exceeded the max link count, and your > > performance would have been abominable too. cyrus should be > > using heirarchies of directories for very large amounts of > > stuff. Right. > But also showing, once again, that this particular scalability problem > really is a headache for some people. If you do ls on that directory as an admin, you'll see, what the REAL cause of this headache is: The application doing such stupid thing! People (writing applications) building up such large directories should be forced to read every entry of it aloud. Then they'll learn[1] and the problem is solved. Regards Ingo Oeser [1] If not, let them repeat until they do. -- 10.+11.03.2001 - 3. Chemnitzer LinuxTag <<<<<<<<<<<< been there and had much fun >>>>>>>>>>>>