Hyrum K Wright wrote on Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 13:54:25 -0500:
> As mentioned elsewhere, I too was surprised by the choice of a custom
> container, though I think you make a good argument for it. One
> simplification I was thinking about is this: what if the container
> only needed to support add and batch-delete operations? These are the
> current contraints of the existing pristine store; would they
> introduce additional simplicity into your design?
> In some respects, it looks like you're solving *two* problems:
> compression and the internal fragmentation due to large FS block
> sizes. How orthogonal are the problems? Could they be solved
> independently of each other in some way? I know that compression
> exposes the internal fragmentation issue, but used alone it certainly
> doesn't make things *worse* does it?
Personally I've also been wondering, while reading the design doc, how
applicable are the solutions to libsvn_fs -- or if they could be
modularized in a way that lets libsvn_fs re-use parts of them, etc.
I haven't found much so far, but this is another angle to look at things
Received on 2012-03-26 14:31:17 CEST