Not entirely true.
If such a directory structure was known to perform that egregiously, no one in their right mind would have designed and built such a thing. Ergo, it didn’t. Ergo, something else must be wrong (too) ... something unrelated to the file/directory counts.
The classic Unix file system would store the directory entries in a chained list of blocks. If you were doing a long listing (ls -l, for example), you would also need to access the main inode for each file to pull file permissions, ownership, etc. This would cause degraded performance if you had a large, flat directory structure. Also, ls tends to sort its output.
A common solution to this problem is to make your directory more tree-like by hashing the file list into a certain number of buckets (N), where N is no larger than the number of directory entries that can fit into a single block in the directory entry on disk. Create as many levels of directories as you need. For example, if you have X files (20K in this case), and N directory entries (10 for this example) can fit in a single block (it is actually larger than this, but let's keep the math easy), you would need a structure of depth ceil(log(X) / log(N)) (in this case, 5). Qmail used this format for its queues.
--MidLifeXis
In reply to Re^2: Get folders in a directory with 20k directories?
by MidLifeXis
in thread Get folders in a directory with 20k directories?
by perlpreben
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |