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

Re: fsfs revprop packing in f5 Re: Does fsfs revprop packing no longer allow usage of traditional backup software?

From: Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:01:35 -0500

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 23:30, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>> This thread is now the only non-FSFS release blocker (filed as #3944).
>>> Last I checked there were at least three solutions suggested, but no
>>> consensus on which solution to implement.
>>> Some suggestions were
>>> 0. Leave things as they are
>>> 1. Allow packing revisions without packing revprops.
>>>   (revprops/ remains as in 1.6/f4)
>>> 2. Have all revprops in the DB all the time, never in plain files.
>>> 3. Swap the DB for some other "A thousand revision's revprops in one
>>>   file" solution. [several suggestions as to that file's format]
>>> Can we decide on what to do here?
>>> Thanks,
>>> Daniel
>>> ---------
>>> My opinion:
>>> * (1) is orthogonal to the others, but may be a good idea if we refactor
>>>  the FS so shortly before the release
>>> * (2) simplifies things, doesn't solve the problems with having an
>>>  SQLite db authoritative for parts of the FS storage
>>>  (read: cp(1) unsafe)
>>> * (3) has my +1, assuming it's sufficiently performant and the concrete
>>>  design is reasonable
>>> * (0) would mean that if we refactor revprop storage later, 1.8 servers
>>>  will have to try and read revprops from *three* places; and lots of
>>>  headache in the upgrade (and read-from-a-being-upgraded-FS) codepaths.
>>>  So, if f5 should be improved, I'd rather do that /before/ it's
>>>  released (and has to be indefinitely supported).
>> After a bit of thinking and discussion, Daniel and I have come up with
>> what we think is an acceptable solution, and I'm posting it here for
>> validation.  (Daniel, please correct me if I've gotten something
>> wrong.)
>> Revision properties will *not* be packed in an sqlite database, but
>> will instead be packed in a single packfile, much like revision are to
>> today.
> Are you suggesting to create single packfile for whole repository or
> packfile for each shard? Per shard packfile looks more reasonable for
> me.


>> The key difference is that instead of having a separate
>> manifest file, the manifest will be prepended to the packfile, meaning
>> the two can be atomically replaced in the case of a propedit.
>> This solution has at least of couple of advantages:
>>  * No need to check a separate "edited" file before reading the packfile
>>  * The repo maintains consistency in the case of a filesystem copy
>> (helpful for backups)
>> Revprops wouldn't be packed until explicitly asked to do so by
>> 'svnadmin pack' which means the frequent post-commit revprop editing
>> wouldn't pose a performance problem.  In addition, the revprop
>> packfile manifest information won't be cached, since the manifest may
>> change.  We don't anticipate this to be a problem, since it only adds
>> an extra seek() to the revprop lookup process (rather than the open()
>> + seek() in the rev packing world).
>> Comments?
> --
> Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2011-07-06 22:02:10 CEST

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