On Tuesday 24 May 2011 09:00 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/24/2011 04:23 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:04:26PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
>>> Why can't we send the recorded checksum from the server instead of
>>> sending the whole file and then calculating it on the client side?
>>>
>>> If the checksum matches one of the pristine files, then use that to
>>> populate the nodes table. If there is no match, only then do we
>>> spool to a temporary file and what not.
>>>
>>> This seems like a straightforward idea. Any pitfalls to this approach?
>> The pitfall is that you need to change the client<->server interface.
>>
>> The current interface at subversion/include/svn_delta.h only transmits
>> checksums before and after applying deltas. First it transmits the checksum
>> of the expected base text for the delta (apply_textdelta), and then,
>> after the delta has been applied, it sends the expected checksum of the
>> content resulting from application of the delta to the base (close_file).
>> This interface doesn't prevent data from being transmitted.
> Heheh... I'm sitting on a patch which transmits the "final sha1 checksum"
> *before* file contents would be transmitted over DAV. Something I whipped
> up before hopping on the plane out of Berlin.
Nice :)
> I was hoping to slip in
> support for avoiding those text transfers altogether where possible. But I
> ran into the obvious problems with the editor interface. (Also, I became
> concerned about the possibility of a race condition in the pristines table
> -- client says "Yep, I've got that text already!", edit continues while
> simultaneously in some other part of the tree that text is removed, edit
> goes to reference the supposedly redundant checksum and it ain't there no mo'.)
>
Can't we increase the ref-count of the pristine node on getting the
<add-file...> element... this way, we need not worry about a parallel
<delete-file..> (IIUC delete-file will only reduce the ref-count, and
the actual removal of the pristine node is taken care of after the
entire editor drive.. atleast.. this is the way it is in my head)
> I held off on committing my RA work because there were no consumers. But
> I've still considering making the change because a) there's no penalty for
> doing so, and b) maybe if we add the requisite client-side magic in 1.8, 1.7
> servers would already be advertising the sha1 checksum that code would need.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> I'll attach my patch which, if accepted in 1.7, should probably be expanded
> to cover svnserve, too.
>
Received on 2011-05-24 17:54:05 CEST