DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2008-02
Re: Globbing (was Re: HAMMER update 10-Feb-2008)
> <20080211132514.GF48892@staatsfeind.org> <47B05CD4.email@example.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Trace: 1202742731 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 855 220.127.116.11
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.kernel:12083
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Matthias Schmidt wrote:
>> * Oliver Fromme wrote:
>>> A few years ago FreeBSD increased the limit to 256 KB.
>>> I don't know if DragonFly did the same, but it doesn't
>>> matter much
>> Nope, we haven't. Our size is still 65536, FreeBSD has 262144.
>> But I don't see any reason not to increase the limit.
> I don't see ANY reason why to increase it. There is simply NO POINT in
> doing so. It will ALWAYS be a limit. Limit keeps being limit, thus no
> change in limit necessary, as it doesn't change the situation. QED.
JFWIW, the limit I was hitting was indeed already the higher number, as
the server in question was running FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE.
So - yes - there's always a limit of some kind, and even 1024 KB would
not have helped here by enough to matter.
But times, and needs, even for slightly improved 'convenience' of
hitting a limit less often, need to change with them, do they not?
I refer not to the weird / one-off case of 80+ GB being dumped into one
subdir overnight, but rather to the far more common situation of longer
filenames than we were once accustomed to.
Those will become more prevalent, not less so, going forward, and they
eat into the available limit just as fast as greater file-count.