On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 09:32:28AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > Any idea what the hash size does to memory usage? I wonder if we > can scale this based on the directory count, or if the memory usage > is minimal (only needed in case of tdb) then just make it the > default. It definitely appears to have been a major performance > boost. Yeah, that was my question. Your patch adds a magic number which probably works well on your machine (and I'm not really worried if someone has less than 1G --- here's a quarter kid, buy your self a real computer :-). But I wonder if we should be using a hash size which is sized automatically depending on available memory or file system size. - Ted -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
