Re: Revised Proposal: Improved locking implementation for fsfs

On Jan 6, 2005, at 6:31 AM, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:

> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, [UTF-8] Branko Ä^Libej wrote:
>
>> Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>> In short, you avoid quadratic I/O behaviour here in exactly the same
>> way
>> as we did in the WC -- by caching the entries files. I'm not sure if
>> this is a valid thing to do in the face of possibly multi-process
>> access
>> to the FS, though.

Just to be clear, Branko wrote that text

> As long as we think that our current APIs, where each lock/unlock
> requires
> at least one network round-trip, I think we shouldn't care very much
> about
> this. Locking 10,000 files in one directory is really a corner case,
> isn't
> it?

I think so. I mean, the round-trips alone are going to take forever,
regardless of our backend implementation. While you *can* do that with
Subversion, I sure wouldn't recommend it.

-Fitz