Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
>
>
>>This proposal sticks with the current mechanism of using the
>>filesystem as a tree to store the locks themselves, and the
>>lock-tokens (which merely contain a pointer to the lock) are all
>>stored in one directory, keyed on their token/uuid.
>>
>>
>>
>Just for the record, we discussed the lock-tokens storage further on IRC
>and agreed that we should use a one-level hierarchy, using the first few
>bytes of the lock-token to spread these files in directories. This helps
>filesystems with problems having many files in one directory. Using two
>characters gives 256 directories in the worst case. That seems to be a
>reasonable balane between many files in one directory and one directory
>per lock token. We don't expect millions of locks, do we?
>
>
Not "expect", no, but we've been burned before where we based out
implementation on something we thought was a reasonable common case,
then it turned out people were doing something quite unreasonable (such
as, e.g., putting 50000 files in one directory).
So I'd suggest using a scheme that scales slightly better, unless that's
really a huge pain to do.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 22 11:11:06 2004