> From: "Ted Unangst"
> Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 17:25:09 -0500
>
> Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > I may be naive, but shouldn't dirhash memory be accounted with/like
> > buffer cache memory (freed when other sybsystems need it)?
>
> Probably. The limit exists in part because there is no back
Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> I may be naive, but shouldn't dirhash memory be accounted with/like
> buffer cache memory (freed when other sybsystems need it)?
Probably. The limit exists in part because there is no backpressure.
On Thu, Feb 21 2019, "Todd C. Miller" wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:00:23 -0500, "Ted Unangst" wrote:
>
>> I picked a new limit of 5MB. This allows for my one very large directory, a
>> few additional directories, and some spare room. It's also still reasonably
>> conservative imo.
>
> Yes pleas
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 17:00:23 -0500, "Ted Unangst" wrote:
> I picked a new limit of 5MB. This allows for my one very large directory, a
> few additional directories, and some spare room. It's also still reasonably
> conservative imo.
Yes please, this makes a huge difference with my email dirs ;-)
UFS dirhash has a limit on how much memory is used to prevent runaway
allocations. I believe the default limit (2MB) is rather conservative.
It was picked to avoid causing trouble back when machines were tiny and
dirhash was new.
For example, a maildir with 100K files takes about 3MB of memory. Be
