On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:42 AM, Ian Kent <ra...@themaw.net> wrote: > It's just that the additive hash function and the tiny, non-prime hash > > table size offended my delicate sensibilities. ;) > > Oh .. right, looks like v4 uses a prime to me but I did mean to use a > prime in v5, oops!
$ factor 27 77 27: 3 3 3 77: 7 11 $ > Actually, we discovered that reloading a large file map took well over > > ten seconds. Profiling revealed that the daemon spent most of its time > > calling strcmp(3). > > > > Oh, and I should note that the problem was observed in autofs v4. I'll > > be looking more closely at autofs v5 in the near future. > > It's much the same, the hash size is not much bigger and it can well do > with a healthy increase. I don't know what sort of distribution the > simple additive hash gives and if we are going to change it then we > should do some checking with representative strings to ensure that what > we use is in fact better. How could it be worse? :P I'll check our large file map just to satisfy my curiosity.
_______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
