Re: Package Pool Proposal
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> With 683 buckets used.
> ^^^^^
> That is a bit extreme...
True, it's almost the theoretical maximum..
> I was thinking, what if we just special case'd lib and maybe a few others
> and still used prefixes but had a set of prefixes like
> [a-z,lib[a-z],x[a-z],g[a-z]] That gives a much smaller top level dir and
> still manages to create a nice logical distribution with good hash
> properties. We can create new buckets later on if needed.
That yeilds:
345 p
273 s
231 c
216 d
206 t
199 m
175 l
162 a
160 f
154 n
143 w
142 i
138 libg
With a mere 111 buckets. Seems reasonable. Otoh, if you don't subdivide x
and g, you get:
382 x
347 g
345 p
273 s
231 c
216 d
206 t
199 m
175 l
162 a
In just 56 buckets. Not significantly worse dir size, and a much easier
special case to remember.
(Personally, I don't care what we use too much:
joey@kite:/home/mirror/debian/all>ls -1 *.deb |wc -l
4416
And it's acceptably fast for random single file accesses.)
--
see shy jo
Reply to: