|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> Seems like it's the same amount of work to me, whether the kernel does
>> it or the application does it.
>
> First, you've eliminated all the overhead of two kernel calls per file,
> which is something like 30% of a typical process' costs of execution.
...are you serious??! o_O
You're telling me an I/O-bound process is slowed down by the mere act of
changing CPU mode? I thought that stuff was more or less instant!
>>> To be fair, NTFS and other tree-based directory systems have to
>>> rework the tree when you delete the files, so this too will be disk
>>> I/O overhead.
>>
>> Um... you don't cache directory blocks, no? (Especially given that
>> they're usually non-contiguous and so take a lot of thrashing to
>> access, and there often heavily accessed.)
>
> Sure. When your directory is bigger than your RAM, that doesn't help a
> whole lot.
Well, true, but a directory entry is about 12 bytes, so you'd need to be
deleting several *thousand million* files, not just 3,000.
>> $500 seems like a hell of a lot of money to me...
>
> Not for a business.
Well, no... not if it's for something important anyway.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |