On Tue, 2002-02-26 at 17:30, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2002 at 04:27:09PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > I thought you were complaining of the performance of streamy fs writes.
> > If you are complaining about log file size, that's easy to remedy.
> > BTW guys, I looked at libxdfs (xdelta's bdb based FS library), and it
> > does what i was doing (log file removal in a thread).
> I don't believe we want to do it in a thread because of some of the issues
> that I raised it earlier.
It's just something I noticed when looking, so i thought i'd point it
In fact, I found it odd that Josh relied on threads, for the very
reasons you raised.
> Auto-deletion of the log files can occur in one of two ways:
> 1) synchronously, say, after every commit of a txn
> 2) async through the post-commit hooks
> Theoretically, a zillion 'svn update' requests will also grow the log files,
> so a cron job is actually quite ideal. But that increases the difficulty of
> installing subversion.
> Personally, I like option (2). If we went with option (1), then we would
> need some way to configure the particular repos to disable the cleaning.
> That implies new directives and/or config files somewhere. I'd prefer to
> avoid that hassle.
> > Hey guys, are we replacing items when we don't need to? (IE rewriting
> > data with the same data) If so, this will greatly increase the log file
> > size, since replaces are logged and include both the original, and
> > replacement, data.
> Yes, we are. Consider what happens during the streamy operation. We're
> appending data. That modifies the value over and over.
> It might be interesting to look into using duplicate keys for the 'strings'
> table. That might allow us to append the new data, without needing to
> rewrite the whole darned record.
> > I get the feeling we rewrite stuff for no reason at times, given the log
> > file sizes.
> "no reason" is a bit of an extreme statement. Mistakes are made, sure, but
> things are always done for some reason or another. ("no reason" is a
> relatively inflammatory statement; it puts the original coder on the
> defensive for their reasoning behind the code)
I meant the program seems to do it for no reason.
I'm sure there's a good reason in the actual code, like it's doing it to
Nothing more was meant than that.
> But the point is valid: if the log sizes are so large, then it could
> certainly point to modifying a record too many times.
> We also modify records when we deltify them. During transaction
> construction, we also "bubble up" directory entry lists. When we convert a
> rep from mutable to non-mutable. etc.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:10 2006