Greg Stein <email@example.com> writes:
> > Hmm. Now might be a good time to rework the filesystem not to create
> > per-object subpools, with the corresponding interface changes.
> I'd be happy to see M2 slip a day to get our working set down to a
> reasonable size.
(I think I must be missing the wavelength here...)
What is the "working set" and how does Jim's suggested change get it
down to a reasonable size? It seems to me that what Jim is suggesting
makes individual working sets bigger (if I understand the term
correctly), not smaller; and that he's suggesting it because calling
styles make it unnecessary for the fs to be so fussy now.
... But I'm not sure.
Somebody please clarify? :-)
> Note: the (server) working set when using DAV will probably be quite a bit
> better. It will be operating against the FS a bit at a time, then cleaning
> up. We won't have these big editor-based pools that glom everything
> together. Dunno what'll happen on the client, tho.
In the past, Greg, you've suggested that we not worry too much about
getting fine-grained editor pool granularity.
Meantime, Ben just checked in a change that makes the filesystem
editor use per-object subpools.
Meantime, the working copy update/checkout editor has been using
per-object subpools for a long time now. :-)
I'm not arguing with anything you're saying above; rather, I'm simply
failing to understand the proposed changes, or even what's motivating
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006