Re: [ANNOUNCE] Ext3 vs Reiserfs benchmarks

[Alan Cox]

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 13:02, Sam Vilain wrote:
> Alan Cox <[e-mail]> wrote:
>    "Yes, we know that there is no directory hashing in ext2/3.  You'll have 
> to find another solution to the problem, I'm afraid.  Why not ease the
> burden on the filesystem by breaking up the task for it, and giving it
> to it in small pieces.  That way it's much less likely to choke."

Actually there are several other reasons for it. It sucks a lot less
when you need to use ls and friends to inspect part of the spool. It
also makes it much easier to split the mail spool over multiple disks as
it grows without having to backup/restore the spool area

> Sure, you could set up hierarchical mail spools.  But it sure stinks of a
> temporary solution for a long-term problem.  What about the next
> application that grows to massive proportions?

JFS ?

> Hey, while I've got your attention, how do you go about debugging your 
> kernel?  I'm trying to add fair scheduling to the new O(1) scheduler,
> something of a token bucket filter counting jiffies used by a
> process/user/s_context (in scheduler_tick()) and tweaking their 
> priority accordingly (in effective_prio()).  It'd be really nice if I
> could run it under UML or something like that so I can trace through
> it with gdb, but I couldn't get the UML patch to apply to your tree. 
> Any hints?

The UML tree and my tree don't quite merge easily. Your best bet is to
grab the Red Hat Limbo beta packages for the kernel source, which if I
remember rightly are both -ac based and include the option to build UML

Alan