Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 10:32 AM, 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. But also, with the new
>> 1-Meg granularity on log files, I've saved 1.5 Megs. Woohoo!
>
>
> Must be that we don't need to allocate as many overflow pages or
> something because we can stuff stuff in the pages used by the
> now-deltified >100k files.
Hey, I just remembered another thing I changed: In a lot of places,
especially in reps-strings.c, we used to have buffers on the stack with
hard-coded, arbitrarily chosen sizes. I changed all those to use
(dynamically-allocated) SVN_STREAM_CHUNK_SIZE. So, indeed, Dan may be right!
--
Brane Čibej <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
Received on Wed Jul 31 19:07:57 2002