Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: why is the size of a directory always 1024b ? | Date | Sat, 26 Jun 1999 10:17:06 -0400 | From | "Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH" <> |
| |
In message <Pine.LNX.4.05.9906260851050.2923-100000@mhw.ULib.IUPUI.Edu>, "Mark H. Wood" writes: +----- | On Wed, 23 Jun 1999, Riley Williams wrote: | [snippage] | > I can understand the viewpoint that says the "size" of a directory is | > simply a count of the number of valid entries therein, but I don't | > agree with it. | | What I think the original poster objects to is that this makes directory | files different from nondirectory files, without giving a good reason. +--->8
Oh, futz. There's a very good reason, which has already been stated: the same reason that "ls -l" of a database-type file (whether from Berkeley DB or Oracle) doesn't return the number of bytes occupied by active records.
Reorganizing a database-like file (and directories are in effect simple databases) on the fly is fraught with race conditions and performance issues. So when you delete a "record" you leave the space there, allocated but unused. If a later new record will fit in the space, you reuse it. This is true of directories; it's true of gdbm; it's true of Berkeley DB; it's true of Oracle and Informix. And not just on Linux.
Can we lay this silly thread to rest now?
-- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH We are Linux. Resistance is an indication that you missed the point.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |