>>> This patch makes sense, but it also raises the question of whether or not >>> we >>> should move to a two-level directory scheme, eg. >>> >>> 123/456/7890ABCDEF >>> rather than >>> 123/4567890ABCDEF >>> >>> to limit the size of the top-level directories. It really depends on the >>> object counts a typical chunkd node will be seeing. As with the other >>> patch, I will give this some thought after sleep. >> >> Two-level directory scheme looks good. >> >> I will do it unless someone thinks 536,870,912,000(=4096*4096*32000) >> objects in one table is not enough :) > > FWIW, 32000 is only the limit on directories-with-a-directory. You can > easily have millions of regular files in a single ext3 directory. So it is > really 4096*4096*millions. Oops, how embarrassing... so 1-level directory scheme with 3-bytes prefix is nealy unlimited in maximum count of objects. BTW, chunkd cannot have more than 32000 tables on ext3 by the same reason (EXT3_MAX_LINK). So, should we use two or three-level directory scheme for table_id in object pathname ? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe hail-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
