[Scons-users] cache directory structure

[William Blevins]

As a user, I think this is reasonable; I cannot imagine as software
assumptions that would make this change detrimental. I don't see it being a
high priority bug issue though since it's probably an enhancement at best.

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Tom Tanner (BLOOMBERG/ LONDON) <
ttanner2 at bloomberg.net> wrote:

> I've been poking around in our system and it seems to me that for us at
> least, given we have around 23,000 files in each cache directory, which
> cripples ls, whether or not it might be better for scons to have 256 cache
> directories rather than the current 16 (00-FF rather than 0-F), as it might
> stress the O/S less (especially if the underlying filer is a bit slow. and
> yes, NFS does come into the equation here).
>
> Is this a reasonable change to make? Does anyone have any opinions /
> feelings / contrary evidence?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scons-users mailing list
> Scons-users at scons.org
> https://pairlist4.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/scons-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist4.pair.net/pipermail/scons-users/attachments/20160127/2e57c9e2/attachment.html>