> On 01/08/2007, at 7:50 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Boyd Adamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Or alternatively, are you comparing ZFS(Fuse) on Linux with XFS on
> >> Linux? That doesn't seem to make sense since the userspace
> >> implementation will always suffer.
> >>
> >> Someone has just mentioned that all of UFS, ZFS and XFS are
> >> available on
> >> FreeBSD. Are you using that platform? That information would be
> >> useful
> >> too.
> >
> > FreeBSD does not use what Solaris calls UFS.
> >
> > Both Solaris and FreeBSD did start with the same filesystem code but
> > Sun did start enhancing UFD in the late 1980's while BSD did not
> > take over
> > the changes. Later BSD started a fork on the filesystemcode.
> > Filesystem
> > performance thus cannot be compared.
>
> I'm aware of that, but they still call it UFS. I'm trying to
> determine what the OP is asking.
I seem to remember many daemons that used large grouping of files such as
this changing to a split out directory tree starting in the late 80's to
avoid slow stat issues. Is this type of design (tossing 300k+ files into
one flat directory) becoming more acceptable again?
-Wade
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
