----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
> To: Hyrum K Wright <hyrum.wright_at_wandisco.com>
> Cc: Ashod Nakashian <ashodnakashian_at_yahoo.com>; "dev_at_subversion.apache.org" <dev_at_subversion.apache.org>; Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>; Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 5:30 PM
> Subject: Re: Compressed Pristines (Design Doc)
> 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
This is certainly something to plan for. I didn't include such info to avoid widening the scope and because we haven't agreed on the design yet. I'll probably get to that when we have consensus on the design, which will hopefully be soon.
Received on 2012-03-26 17:52:50 CEST