yes having this configurable looks ridiculous to me. The only thing that i can think of is is the 32K limit for all the filesystems? or does another filesystem has another limit?
Because if that is the case we could make it so that for example we do 3 (1000 dirs) or 4 (10000 dirs) numbers per dir hopefully the hash is a bit equally divided so the first dir will make 999 dirs before it complete fills up for example 1 dir hope it balances On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Uwe Schäfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > James Carman schrieb: > > So, why are we dividing it up in the first place if it can't lead to >> problems? >> > > before, there was just the sessionId, which - as we all know - could lead > to problems with 32k concurrent sessions. > > what you now have is 8 numbers (like in 100.000.000 minus one) * 32k. > i would be surprised to see that many sessions without having an almost > infinite session timeout. > > > Why are we picking arbitrary divisors? Are they the > >> "optimal" setting? >> > > one more char per directory can wreck the 32k limit, one less would give > you a 32million (with optimal distribution of course) which i found to be an > 'unnecessary limitation'. > > i´d say reasonable, but i really would not mind to see this configurable. > > i just didn´t because > a) i cannot imagine a valid usecase for more (could be wrong here of > course, and would like to know) > and - more importantly - > b) this is a very small, local patch with no API change with and thus less > opportunities for a rookie like me to screw things up. if it were > configurable... you know... ;) > > > cu uwe > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
