6.0R todo list - hash sizes

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 11:58:28AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:46:28AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Divacky Roman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > scottl@ removed:
> > >     <td>Nullfs (and perhaps other filesystems) use an absurdly small
> > >      hash size that causes significant performance penalties.</td>
> > > 
> > > this item from 6.0R todo list. How was this solved? I didnt see any commits
> > > to enlarge the hash values. Its still the same... why it was removed then?
> > 
> > It was an incorrect suggestion on my part - it turns out this was not
> > the cause of the performance penalties, and Jeff fixed them long ago.
> > 
> > Kris
> > 
> 
> anyway - what sense does it make to have hash of size 4 entries? (fdescfs has
> this for example)

It doesn't cause any performance penalty I can measure.

Kris
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/attachments/20051002/a98e8a70/attachment.bin