Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 20:13:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: dirhash and dynamic memory allocation Message-ID: <4EA234D1.7000805@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20111022030403.GA176@icarus.home.lan> References: <4E97FEDD.7060205@quip.cz> <j7938v$66s$1@dough.gmane.org> <4EA19203.5050503@quip.cz> <4EA2277B.5080306@FreeBSD.org> <20111022030403.GA176@icarus.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/21/2011 20:04, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 07:16:27PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >> Isn't that what vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize is for? I think given that there >> is a lot more memory in modern systems setting that higher by default is >> probably a good idea. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what that knob does? > > I believe the function of that sysctl is different. It's not the > "minimum amount of dirhash memory to retain", it's: > > $ sysctl -d vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize > vfs.ufs.dirhash_minsize: minimum directory size in bytes for which to use hashed lookup Ah, silly me. I'm so used to 'sysctl -d' not working that I didn't even try it this time. Thanks for setting me straight. In that case I agree with the OP that a knob for minimum setting would be desirable. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EA234D1.7000805>