[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Revised Proposal: Improved locking implementation for fsfs

From: John Szakmeister <john_at_szakmeister.net>
Date: 2005-01-06 16:28:26 CET

Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, [UTF-8] Branko �^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?

I'm not sure about that. I currently work with a customer who has a
pretty large setup, and they're dying for locking to get into place.
They've already asked me several times about being able to have locks on
every file in the repository. I would not put it past them to hit this
case... and to do it the first time they get locking up and running.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 6 16:35:38 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.