From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu, Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu>
References: <4948.1137798063@piper.nectar.cs.cmu.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <4948.1137798063@piper.nectar.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] acme mail on unix
Message-Id: <20060121000608.8868D15361@dexter-peak.quanstro.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 18:06:08 -0600
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e23a4e84-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025


Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu> writes

| Instead my guess would be something more like: if you're
| rebuilding the quota database you can do so by N/M
| readdir()'s instead of N/M readdir()'s plus N stat()'s,
| which is probably a huge reduction in disk seeks, which
| would be attractive since almost everything stat() would
| be telling you would be irrelevant (e.g., inode number,
| permissions, actual disk blocks consumed).

i've heard ken has a solution to this that involves less code. ;-)

seriously, how does this make sense for a /user's/ maildir
located in the user's home directory?

notwithstanding that the very long filenames blow much
of the original savings.

- erik