Printable View
Long time ago i read somewhere that number of files that should be in a directory should be around 1024 for maximum performance of File access and other IO operations.
anyone know a link to an article/msdn or what ever that says anything close to this statement?
thanks
Kovan,
A huge number of files in one directory ofcourse would affect access performance . I've a more than 2000 pics in one folder in a cd .It's really difficult to browse them specially when thumbnail mode on . Never heard of that recommendation by the way !
I don't think it's so much the # of files as it is the toal # of bytes used by the files...but then since files in the same dir aren't truly stored near the same location on the drive I don't see how that would affect things.
At the same, as you admitted, it was a long time ago.... proably in the days when disk storage space was ata premium it might have been an issue, but nowadays...
I remember when I got my first 286 it said in the manual: "It is very importent to name your files with good names. Becuse when you have used your computer for a while, you can have more then 100 of them on the HD..." :D
Well , what I'm sure of is that Macintosh can have 1024 files as maximam storage within one folder . kovan , maybe you messed between Windows and Macintosh ;) .
All filesystem types have maximum limits on file counts both on the disk and in individual directories.
Performance issues usually cut in a long way before that. If you have a directory with 3000 files of 2K each, behaviour will be drastically different between NTFS and FAT32, for example (NTFS does not require extra disk storage other than the index entry for small files).
Basically, you shouldn't hit the hard limits unless you *really* go mad with it. Anyway, if you have that many files in a directory, surely you need to rethink your organisation a bit? :)
anyone know a direct link to MS point of view on this?