Re: Yet another base64 patch
- From
- Paul Dickson <paul@permanentmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 15, 2005, 23:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050415165532.05ed5dc4.paul@permanentmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <425DEF64.60108@zytor.com>
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 21:19:48 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Checking out the total kernel tree (time checkout-cache -a into an empty > directory): > > Cache cold Cache hot > stock 3:46.95 19.95 > base64 5:56.20 23.74 > flat 2:44.13 15.68 > > It seems that the flat format, at least on ext3 with dircache, is > actually a major performance win, and that the second level loses quite > a bit.
Since 160-bits does not go into base64 evenly anyways, what happens if you use 2^10 instead of 2^12 for the subdir names? That will be 1/4 the directories of the base64 given above.
-Paul