[Scons-users] cache directory structure

[Bill Deegan]

Interesting.
Would SCons then need to have a migration path for the cached files?
That shouldn't be too hard right?

-Bill

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 8:33 AM, William Blevins <wblevins001 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160127/481d34b5/attachment.html>