You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> on 2011/08/25 10:09:56 UTC
FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
disks).
With that in mind, what's the fate of the (flat files -based)
'revprop-packing' branch? Will anyone need it by the time 1.8.0 is
released? If not, we may forget about the branch and avoid finishing
and reintegrating it for 1.8.0.
Re: FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 09:55:53 -0500:
> Does something stop working for you if the branch is reintergrated?
>
No.
Re: FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Posted by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:29:59 -0500:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
>> > which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
>> > packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
>> > disks).
>>
>> Not everybody has an SSD.
>>
>> > With that in mind, what's the fate of the (flat files -based)
>> > 'revprop-packing' branch? Will anyone need it by the time 1.8.0 is
>> > released? If not, we may forget about the branch and avoid finishing
>> > and reintegrating it for 1.8.0.
>>
>> I'd still like to get the branch reintegrated back to trunk. The code
>> is written, is there a compelling reason (other than status quo bias)
>> *not* to get it back to trunk?
>
> Works for me.
That would be the "status quo bias" I was talking about. :)
Does something stop working for you if the branch is reintergrated?
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Posted by Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name>.
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:29:59 -0500:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
> > which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
> > packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
> > disks).
>
> Not everybody has an SSD.
>
> > With that in mind, what's the fate of the (flat files -based)
> > 'revprop-packing' branch? Will anyone need it by the time 1.8.0 is
> > released? If not, we may forget about the branch and avoid finishing
> > and reintegrating it for 1.8.0.
>
> I'd still like to get the branch reintegrated back to trunk. The code
> is written, is there a compelling reason (other than status quo bias)
> *not* to get it back to trunk?
Works for me.
Re: FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 08/25/2011 09:29 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
>> which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
>> packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
>> disks).
>
> Not everybody has an SSD.
>
>> With that in mind, what's the fate of the (flat files -based)
>> 'revprop-packing' branch? Will anyone need it by the time 1.8.0 is
>> released? If not, we may forget about the branch and avoid finishing
>> and reintegrating it for 1.8.0.
>
> I'd still like to get the branch reintegrated back to trunk. The code
> is written, is there a compelling reason (other than status quo bias)
> *not* to get it back to trunk?
. o O ( Because danielsh and stsp don't want to think about successor-id
packing? :-) )
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Posted by Hyrum K Wright <hy...@wandisco.com>.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf <d....@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
> which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
> packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
> disks).
Not everybody has an SSD.
> With that in mind, what's the fate of the (flat files -based)
> 'revprop-packing' branch? Will anyone need it by the time 1.8.0 is
> released? If not, we may forget about the branch and avoid finishing
> and reintegrating it for 1.8.0.
I'd still like to get the branch reintegrated back to trunk. The code
is written, is there a compelling reason (other than status quo bias)
*not* to get it back to trunk?
-Hyrum
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com/
Re: FSFS revprop packing: use cases
Posted by Stefan Fuhrmann <eq...@web.de>.
On 25.08.2011 10:09, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
> which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
> packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
> disks).
From my POV, there are still 2 issues that make
revprop packing worthwhile.
(1) Having a large number of (small) files can
become a nuisance if you want to copy or archive
repositories. Standard zip (and possibly other
archive formats) doesn't support > 64k files and
Windows people usually don't tar.
(2) Revprop lookup *is* a performance critical
operation because its result cannot be reused
across multiple SVN requests and many different
timestamps have to be fetched for c/o, export
and log (i.e. revprop access is a frequent operation).
Having fewer revprop files reduces file I/O.
-- Stefan^2.