On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 12:33:06PM -0600, Modulok wrote: > >>Personally I cannot think of any situation where one would actually want > (let alone need) as many as 30000 or more subdirectories in a single > directory. > > "No one will ever need more than 640K of memory!"
Not quite the same thing. One major problem with having lots of entries in a directory is for humans using it (who have not become significantly faster or more capable over the recent decades.) Having lots of entries in a single directory is simply very unwieldy. There are is a reason why people invented hierarchichal files systems with directories and sub-directories, you know. For those situations where the directory is not intended to be looked at by a human, but only by programs, then there are more efficient ways of storing the data if you need that many entries. (A real database system, for example.) Besides, most (all?) of the situations where one might concievably want many entries in a single directory, what one would usually want is lots of files, not lots of sub-directories - once you start using sub-directories, you might as well use more than a single level of them. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"