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

Re: Does fsfs revprop packing no longer allow usage of traditional backup software?

From: Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 12:56:40 -0500

> 2011/7/1 Peter Samuelson <peter_at_p12n.org>:
> >> If this is too much trouble, b) why not write a list of edited
> >> revprop files to a single file instead
> >
> > (...) Opening, reading, and parsing this file isn't going
> > to be cheaper than a _single_ attempt to open a revprop file that does
> > not exist. (...)
> >
> > Of course, the same can be said for the min-unpacked-revprop file
> > today.

[Konstantin Kolinko]
> So, does n't it make min-unpacked-revprop file obsolete?

Yes, most of the various strategies we're talking about here will make
the min-unpacked-revprop file obsolete.

> Is it true that instead of reading min-unpacked-revprop file one can:
> - try to open unpacked revprop file,
> - and if it does not exist go straight to reading the rev-props DB.

Correct. The concern is that trying to open a file that does not exist
may be expensive on some platforms. I don't see why this should be -
seems like it should be easy for the OS to determine - but I also
haven't benchmarked it.

Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
Received on 2011-07-01 19:57:21 CEST

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