Mike Kazantsev wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:42:02 GMT > Lie Ryan <lie.1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mike Kazantsev wrote: >>> In fact, on modern filesystems it doesn't matter whether you >>> accessing /path/f9e95ea4926a4 with million files in /path >>> or /path/f/9/e/95ea with only hundred of them in each path. Former >>> case (all-in-one-path) would even outperform the latter with ext3 >>> or reiserfs by a small margin. >>> Sadly, that's not the case with filesystems like FreeBSD ufs2 (at >>> least in sixth branch), so it's better to play safe and create >>> subdirs if the app might be run on different machines than keeping >>> everything in one path. >> It might not matter for the filesystem, but the file explorer (and ls) >> would still suffer. Subfolder structure would be much better, and much >> easier to navigate manually when you need to. > > It's an insane idea to navigate any structure with hash-based names > and hundreds of thousands files *manually*: "What do we have here? > Hashies?" ;) >
Like... when you're trying to debug a code that generates an error with a specific file... Yeah, it might be possible to just mv the file from outside, but not being able to enter a directory just because you've got too many files in it is kind of silly. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
