On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:42:02 GMT Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike Kazantsev wrote: > > In fact, on modern filesystems it doesn't matter whether you > > accessing /path/f9e95ea4926a4 with million files in /path > > or /path/f/9/e/95ea with only hundred of them in each path. Former > > case (all-in-one-path) would even outperform the latter with ext3 > > or reiserfs by a small margin. > > Sadly, that's not the case with filesystems like FreeBSD ufs2 (at > > least in sixth branch), so it's better to play safe and create > > subdirs if the app might be run on different machines than keeping > > everything in one path. > > It might not matter for the filesystem, but the file explorer (and ls) > would still suffer. Subfolder structure would be much better, and much > easier to navigate manually when you need to. It's an insane idea to navigate any structure with hash-based names and hundreds of thousands files *manually*: "What do we have here? Hashies?" ;) -- Mike Kazantsev // fraggod.net
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
