Received: from ganesh.paneris.org (IDENT:root@paneris.org [194.128.98.74]) by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA08093 for ; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 02:36:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from tim@hoop.co.uk) Received: from noonoo (flav1.dircon.co.uk [194.112.47.31]) by ganesh.paneris.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA07697; Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:34:42 +0100 Message-ID: <005201bf2046$159bb9f0$0501a8c0@noonoo> From: "Tim Joyce" To: , , "Gene Selkov, Jr." References: <199910270541.AAA25460@antares> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] 8k limit Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:29:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 > > For example, my file system can have 1064960 files in it (one can find > that out with fsck), but the practical constraint will be much > lower. I find it difficult to deal with 30000 files in one directory, > for example. The time it takes to open a file in such directory is > usually on the order of seconds. I don't know if this info is useful, but; I have a directory with 150K files in it, and can open files in it without noticable delay (this is not through postgres). Before setting up this dir, i tried to find out the limit of how many files is sensible. I couldn't find any info so just thought i'd try it, and it appears to work fine. If you think I am going to hit problems (I am serving jpgs from this directory for a web site), please let me know. running on Red Hat Linux release 5.2 (Apollo) Kernel 2.0.36 on an i686 cheers timj