From: Paul Dickson <paul@permanentmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 23:55:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Yet another base64 patch
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:

> 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