Hey Eric,
There are some notes at /trunk/notes/wc-ng-design. I wouldn't call it
a "spec" by any stretch. There iare some APIs for a new storage
subsystem located at libsvn_wc/. Basically, I think the WC rewrite is
much more of a research effort. I've been rewriting bits, moving it
towards a place where I can swap out the underlying pieces.
I had no plans regarding the RA connections. That's out of the scope
of what I'm doing right now, so I'd say it will continue to be an
issue.
And for your last point, I believe the new WC will have no locks at
all. That's my intent/goal, at least. So multi-user access should be
just fine.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Miller, Eric <Eric.Miller_at_amd.com> wrote:
>
> A few quick questions on the upcoming WC rewrite.
>
> First - is there a spec for the proposed wc rewrite? Perhaps my questions
> are already answered there.
>
> Second - I have a problem with the way the wc adm_crawler is currently
> implemented in that it finishes the reporter.
> In the case of the wc update routines, this effectively causes a new
> connection to the repository to be created for every path given to the
> client.
> For a large number of input paths this overhead becomes the dominant factor
> in update times which may be orders of magnitude longer than if done over a
> single connection.
> Will the wc rewrite address this issue and allow the update of multiple wc
> paths using a single RA connection?
>
> Third - I am concerned about maintaining multi-user access with the new WC
> model. Is the current POR to lock the entire WC for write operations? If
> so, this could have some very negative consequences in our environment.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-01 01:54:42 CET