Re: shrinking repository...

cmpilato@collab.net wrote:

>Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
>
>
>
>>Mix <mixtim@acm.org> writes:
>>
>>
>>>Several of the files are > 100K. The new repos were made with revision
>>>2809 so yeh, they are kind of recent. Can't remember which revision
>>>made the old repos.
>>>
>>>My other repos don't have large files with numerous commits and they
>>>are all roughly the same size.
>>>
>>>
>>That's it, then. Brane activated the new deltification code in
>>revision 2803. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Looks like we're getting savings even in the < 100K category. I have
>a copy of the Subversion repos at 2656. 59 Megs large with
>unnecessary log files removed. I dumped and reloaded it. 43 Megs
>now. `strings' table is quite a bit smaller.
>

That can't be because of the combiner. Could it be that the strings
table was fragmented, and reloading made it more compact?

> But also, with the new
>1-Meg granularity on log files, I've saved 1.5 Megs. Woohoo!
>

And with the new hot-backup.py script, you'll save on backup size, too,
because we don't keep the shared mem environments around. That's another
Meg right there. :-)

(But don't switch to the new hot_backup.py before upgrading the server!)

-- 
Brane ÄŒibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org