linux-ext4 - Re: Enabling h-trees too early?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070919170231.GM32520@schatzie.adilger.int>
Date:	Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:02:31 -0600
From:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...sterfs.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Enabling h-trees too early?

On Sep 19, 2007  17:07 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>   I was just wondering: Currently we start to build h-tree in a directory
> already when the size of directory exceeds one block. But honestly, it does
> not seem to make much sence to use this feature until the directory is much
> larger (I'd say at least 16 or 32 KB). It actually slows down some
> operations like deleting the whole directory, etc. So what is the reason
> for starting building the tree so early? Just the simplicity of building it
> when the directory is just one block large?

Yes, doing it at one block is easy, doing it with more blocks is complex.
At the time we added this feature, tests showed no performance difference
between 2 unhashed blocks and 2 hashed blocks so the easier code was used.

Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Principal Software Engineer
Cluster File Systems, Inc.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html