mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge remote-tracking branch 'branchable/master'

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2011-03-14 12:22:09 -04:00
commit 353d4ae9e9
1 changed files with 0 additions and 12 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
doc/forum/hashing_objects_directories/comment_2_d095c769febedca2d69fa5d099bcb520._comment
View file

@ -1,12 +0,0 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="http://joey.kitenet.net/"
nickname="joey"
subject="comment 2"
date="2011-03-14T16:12:51Z"
content="""
My experience is that modern filesystems are not going to have many issues with tens to hundreds of thousands of items in the directory. However, if a transition does happen for FAT support I will consider adding hashing. Although getting a good balanced hash in general without, say, checksumming the filename and taking part of the checksum, is difficult.
I prefer to keep all the metadata in the filename, as this eases recovery if the files end up in lost+found. So while \"SHA/\" is a nice workaround for the FAT colon problem, I'll be doing something else. (What I'm not sure yet.)
There is no point in creating unused hash directories on initialization. If anything, with a bad filesystem that just guarantees worst performance from the beginning..
"""]]