Re: 6.0R todo list - hash sizes

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 03:22:59PM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> 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.

maybe using hash then is useless and the hash functionality could be removed to
simplify the code?