On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 11:58:28AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:46:28AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > scottl_at_ removed: > > > <td>Nullfs (and perhaps other filesystems) use an absurdly small > > > hash size that causes significant performance penalties.</td> > > > > > > this item from 6.0R todo list. How was this solved? I didnt see any commits > > > to enlarge the hash values. Its still the same... why it was removed then? > > > > It was an incorrect suggestion on my part - it turns out this was not > > the cause of the performance penalties, and Jeff fixed them long ago. > > > > Kris > > > > anyway - what sense does it make to have hash of size 4 entries? (fdescfs has > this for example) It doesn't cause any performance penalty I can measure. Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:44 UTC