Re: [RFC] FSFS filesystem options (long, sorry)

> Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> writes:
> > - I don't have the information to choose the most efficient size of
> > directory. I could choose a reasonable value (4096? 10000?) and
> > that'd be okay...

[Karl Fogel]
> Can we get that information?

Kean Johnston (CC'd) wanted this feature back in 2005 on the grounds
that SCO Unixware had severe scalability problems when a directory
exceeds 4096 entries:

  http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-10/0269.shtml

I guess I'd vote for 2000 entries per bucket. Honestly, 1000 entries
is probably sufficient - you have to go north of 2000000 revisions
before it scales worse than 2000 entries. Either one makes it easy to
figure out in one's head (or a shell script) where a revision will
live, which some people might find useful.

> But we've had incompatible upgrades before: in the working copy
> format, at least, and perhaps also in the repository format

Yeah, svndiff1.