On Monday 19 January 2004 13:37, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > > This is actually a bad idea. While many filesystems today have > > binary tree directory structures, some still do not. Allowing > > too many miscellaneous sounds in a single directory is not only > > difficult to browse, it may also consume inordinate amounts of > > CPU, memory, and user time attempting to process the directory > > structure. > > I agree, but I would have figured that any modern OS would have > cached, hashed and otherwise unfolded the directory structure into > something ridiculously easy to access after the first read and > parse.
Although the OS may cache that information, the userland process can take quite some time to process a very full directory. I've had this happen quite a few times with Linux ext2 filesystems, where the fileglob * exceeded bash's limit of 32,768 characters. /bin/ls on those directories took several minutes before the first results were given. I'll additionally comment that the directories I was working with were not normally that full, but was a side effect of a process dumping lots of little files into a directory when something went wrong. On a slight tangent, NT4 had a practical limit of about 300 directory entries before attempting to process the directory became unbearably slow. -Tilghman _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
