> > ReiserFS does deal with billions of tiny files better than almost > > all other file systems. You're going to run into inode issues with ext3 > > as well. However what you're doing sounds like it belongs in a database > > instead of creating weird data structures within your filesystem. > > > > kashani > > Kashani, > Thanks, I searched and found some docs that indicate this too. Your > answer was much better than Dave Nebinger's of "search for > 'unmaintainable ridiculous software architecture'", that wasn't helpful > at all.
It wasn't meant to be helpful in choosing a filesystem. If you think that choosing ReiserFS will make the software somehow magically function better than whatever you're looking at now, you're sadly mistaken. Traversal of that directory structure (256 within 256 within 256 ... 8 to 12 levels deep) is going to be difficult for any software. The point that you should have taken from my response is that a filesystem, any filesystem, is not the correct implementation; a database is. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate the sarcasm. -- [email protected] mailing list
