[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: perf question 100,000 directories vs 1 directory



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/21/06 01:03, misc@imerk.net wrote:
> I believe the reason we're using individual databases is for 
> marketing purposes. aparently being able to say its a single 
> tenent application is a selling point.

Eh.

That's why I switched from b-school to comp-sci and math...

> Although if its going to be too problematic we may switch to a 
> single db.

*I* think that you should go for a single-database approach.  How-
ever, I am a DBA by trade, and so that's "my hammer".

Back to the lots-of-files issues, though.  Presumably, you are
concerned about 100,000 files/directories in /home?  If so, then
note that users don't have to live in /home.

Create (using a shell script) 676 directories under /home :
 aa/
 ab/
 ac/
 .
 .
 .
 zx/
 zy/
 zz/

Then, when creating an account, use the first 2 characters of the
last name to decide which directory to go in.

For example: if my acount is rljohnson, my $HOME would be
  /home/jo/rljohnson

Since Johnson is a much more common name than Aardvark, you might
want to make some divisions even deeper:
  jo/
  jack/
  john/
  jon/

Jack* all go in /home/jack, John* all go in /home/john, Jon* all go
in /home/jon and all other Jo* names go in /home/jo.

sm/ is another.  You might want a smith/ in addition to sm/.

> On 10/20/06 13:21, misc@imerk.net wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I'm working on a database application. We're going to have 
>>> multiple logins, say 100,000.
> 
> By "logins", do you mean "user accounts"?
> 
>>> Performance wise would we see a difference if we had 100,000
>>>  directories with each users database in its own directory, 
>>> versus having 1 directory with all 100,000 databases in that 
>>> single directory?
> 
> ????  100,000 databases????
> 
> The purpose and idea of database engines is that you can combine 
> all the separate user data into *one* database.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFOdpYS9HxQb37XmcRAiUSAJ93/tGyeVjq/nl4lnNlS213/xz+jQCcC3q2
3R+0NazHMH22PRntgqG2Ldc=
=WGVb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: