From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jan 16 8:54:35 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BC3037B401 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:54:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mired.org (ip68-97-54-220.ok.ok.cox.net [68.97.54.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 009CE43F5B for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 08:54:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mwm-dated-1043168063.849bdb@mired.org) Received: (qmail 38163 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 16:54:23 -0000 Received: from localhost.mired.org (HELO guru.mired.org) (127.0.0.1) by localhost.mired.org with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 16:54:23 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15910.58303.109949.348482@guru.mired.org> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:54:23 -0600 To: John Ekins Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Directory hashing question In-Reply-To: <20030116151326.5a6a9074.jre@globalnet.co.uk> References: <20030116151326.5a6a9074.jre@globalnet.co.uk> X-Mailer: VM 7.07 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid X-face: "5Mnwy%?j>IIV\)A=):rjWL~NB2aH[}Yq8Z=u~vJ`"(,&SiLvbbz2W`; h9L,Yg`+vb1>RG% *h+%X^n0EZd>TM8_IB;a8F?(Fb"lw'IgCoyM.[Lg#r\ From: Mike Meyer X-Delivery-Agent: TMDA/0.68 (Shut Out) Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG [Format fixed.] In <20030116151326.5a6a9074.jre@globalnet.co.uk>, John Ekins typed: > I've tried different hashings. Using example.foo as an example > (:-)), if I take the first and second letters of the domain and hash > it like this /var/named/e/x/example.foo I still end up with (in a > few cases) more than 3000 zones in one directory. If I hash using > the first+second and third+fourth like this > /var/named/ex/am/example.com I end up with a lot fewer zones in the > individual directories, but bind's start up time is much longer. Well, since the first and second letters don't work well - which makes sense - how about trying the last and next-to-last? Those should have a more random distribution. Also, if you don't have DIRHASH enabled on that file system, you might consider doing so and then letting the system do the hashing for you. Personally, I'd be tempted to set up subdirectories even if it made no difference in performance, just to make it easier for humans to deal with. http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message