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

Re: fs-rep-sharing branch

From: David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:57:23 -0700

As far as I can tell from reading the source, this (at least in FSFS)
assumes that reps sharing the same md5 are the same file. (BDB seems
to use sha1.)

This means that you cannot store two files with the same md5 in the
same repository. While obviously all hashes have collisions in
theory, md5 has collisions in practice: there are known instances.
And you know, cryptography researchers use Subversion! (At one point
I tried to help fix Ron Rivest's corrupted svn repo...) I do not
think that this limitation is appropriate for Subversion; I would
highly advise against releasing this without changing FSFS to use SHA
as well. (I can't find a mailing-list discussion of this choice; my
apologies if I missed one, I have admittedly been not paying as much
attention as I'd like to Subversion development recently.)


On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:59 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> The fs-rep-sharing branch is functionally complete, and I'd like to get the
> branch merged to trunk soon. These are the stats for various copies of of our
> repository for the different branch/backend combinations.
> BDB: 1.5: 1.4GB
> trunk: 627MB
> reps-shared: 490MB
> FSFS: 1.5: 586MB
> trunk: 578MB
> reps-shared: 523MB
> The effect is quite pronounced on BDB, with around a 20% space savings compared
> with our current trunk (and over 67% compared with 1.5!) FSFS doesn't show as
> much improvement, partly due to the size of the index required to enable
> rep-sharing, partly due to decreased sharing opportunities in same-revision and
> parallel revision objects, and mostly due to the absolute floor on repo size due
> to inode usage.
> We may be able to tune the FSFS implementation just a bit. For instance, it may
> not be likely that directory content representations are likely to be shared, in
> which case we shouldn't bother
> The remaining issue is the failing blame tests. Blame tests 10 and 11, which
> test 'blame -g', both fail for both backends. Before the recent commits to add
> rep-sharing to fsfs, the tests only failed for bdb. I'm slightly puzzled here
> because 'blame -g' should be FS-agnostic. If anybody has some insight, I
> welcome it.
> [Note: Because SQLite is still not an official dependency, to compile the
> rep-sharing stuff with FSFS, you'll need to add -DENABLE_SQLITE_TESTING to the
> CPPFLAGS when configuring.]
> -Hyrum

David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-22 00:57:37 CEST

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