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

Re: [RFC] FSFS filesystem options (long, sorry)

From: Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org>
Date: 2007-03-06 05:41:10 CET

> Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> writes:
> > - I don't have the information to choose the most efficient size of
> > directory. I could choose a reasonable value (4096? 10000?) and
> > that'd be okay...

[Karl Fogel]
> Can we get that information?

Kean Johnston (CC'd) wanted this feature back in 2005 on the grounds
that SCO Unixware had severe scalability problems when a directory
exceeds 4096 entries:


I guess I'd vote for 2000 entries per bucket. Honestly, 1000 entries
is probably sufficient - you have to go north of 2000000 revisions
before it scales worse than 2000 entries. Either one makes it easy to
figure out in one's head (or a shell script) where a revision will
live, which some people might find useful.

> But we've had incompatible upgrades before: in the working copy
> format, at least, and perhaps also in the repository format

Yeah, svndiff1.

Received on Tue Mar 6 05:41:25 2007

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.