[sldev] Cache speed experiment & results...

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 2008-06-04, at 02:46, Felix Duesenburg wrote:
> I don't know where I read that... someone tell me if it's just a  
> rumour. Can it be true that for reasons related to the historical  
> evolution of Windows, it's still a wee bit faster if filenames  
> sticked to the old 8.3 convention?

Not in NTFS. If you're using FAT32, it's possible. that would make it  
maybe...

%CACHEDIR%\textures\55\0e\84\00e2\9b41d4\a7164466\55440000

You still want the early levels to be limited to a maximum of 256  
entries, otherwise you end up with the problem of tens of thousands  
of entries in a directory again.