From f130c413a9c8d82b7813e001c7e561609cce4caa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://joey.kitenet.net/" Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 16:13:30 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] removed --- ...mment_2_d095c769febedca2d69fa5d099bcb520._comment | 12 ------------ 1 file changed, 12 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 doc/forum/hashing_objects_directories/comment_2_d095c769febedca2d69fa5d099bcb520._comment diff --git a/doc/forum/hashing_objects_directories/comment_2_d095c769febedca2d69fa5d099bcb520._comment b/doc/forum/hashing_objects_directories/comment_2_d095c769febedca2d69fa5d099bcb520._comment deleted file mode 100644 index 41c6ad5d96..0000000000 --- a/doc/forum/hashing_objects_directories/comment_2_d095c769febedca2d69fa5d099bcb520._comment +++ /dev/null @@ -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.. -"""]]