On Tue, 8 May 2001 at 02:03, Carl Rueder wrote:
> Therefore the work with many files within a directory isn't slowed
> down by walking through a list. But, why is ReiserFS a few times
> faster than xfs when working in a directory which contains about
> 100.000 small files (about 1k in size)? Where's my gap in
> understanding this phenomenon?
This looks like an important issue to find (1) proof of, and (2) answers
for. If indeed ReiserFS performs better than XFS on directories with small
files, the former filesystem would be a better solution speedwise for the
likes of Maildirs, where mail is stored in individual small files versus
in a single large mbox-type file.
Perhaps an expert in the list could help out with answers?
Thanks in advance!
--> Jijo
---
Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows NT ...
... also known as the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
|