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

Re: Two approaches to data-hiding (for obliterate)

From: Ph. Marek <philipp.marek_at_emerion.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 11:07:19 +0200

Hello everybody!

>>> I would not be opposed to telling people "you must use FSFS for the
>>> obliterate feature". I'm sure others may feel differently, but there's
>>> my vote/opinion.
>> I seem to recall Julian mentioned it would be easier to implement this
>> with BDB.
> Yes, it would be *much* easier with BDB, since it wasn't conceived and
> designed as a write-once store.
 From my practical tests BDB is *much* more reliable for commits with
an awful lot of files, ie. in the multiple thousand case.

With that I mean that FSVS behaviour of putting 2 files for every
to-be-committed file in the transaction directory (without any
sharding) makes it highly sensitive on the used file system; and while
there are lots of hints available ("use dirindex"), etc., it's
nonetheless one point that makes FSVS a bit less useful (for big
commits!) than BDB.

So, because of this small point, I'd be happy with BDB obliteration
support ;-)



Received on 2009-10-02 11:07:37 CEST

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.