Re: Revised Proposal: Improved locking implementation for fsfs

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, [UTF-8] Branko Ä^Libej wrote:

> Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> In short, you avoid quadratic I/O behaviour here in exactly the same way
> as we did in the WC -- by caching the entries files. I'm not sure if
> this is a valid thing to do in the face of possibly multi-process access
> to the FS, though.
>
As long as we think that our current APIs, where each lock/unlock requires
at least one network round-trip, I think we shouldn't care very much about
this. Locking 10,000 files in one directory is really a corner case, isn't
it?

Regards,
//Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 6 13:45:19 2005