Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:56:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:56:08 -0500 Received: from leibniz.math.psu.edu ([146.186.130.2]:53381 "EHLO math.psu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:55:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 15:54:25 -0500 (EST) From: Alexander Viro To: Pavel Machek cc: Bill Crawford , Linux Kernel , "H. Peter Anvin" , Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Hashing and directories In-Reply-To: <20000101020213.D28@(none)> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > I was hoping to point out that in real life, most systems that > > need to access large numbers of files are already designed to do > > some kind of hashing, or at least to divide-and-conquer by using > > multi-level directory structures. > > Yes -- because their workaround kernel slowness. Pavel, I'm afraid that you are missing the point. Several, actually: * limits of _human_ capability to deal with large unstructured sets of objects * userland issues (what, you thought that limits on the command size will go away?) * portability The point being: applications and users _do_ know better what structure is there. Kernel can try to second-guess them and be real good at that, but inability to second-guess is the last of the reasons why aforementioned strategies are used. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/