Ashod Nakashian wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>>> Would you like to assess the feasibility of compressing the pristine
>>> >store by re-mounting the "pristines" subdirectory as a compressed
>>> >subtree in the operating system's file system?
>>>
>>> No :-)
>>>
>>> There are two ways to answer this interesting proposition of
>>> compressed file-systems. The obvious one is that it isn't something
>>> SVN can or should control. The file-system and certainly system
>>> drivers are up to the user and any requirement or suggestion of
>>> tempering with them is decidedly unwarranted and unexpected from
>>> a VCS.
>>
>> The suggestion wasn't that you teach svn how to change the OS's fs
>> settinsg, it was that you investigate how solutions at the OS level
>> compare to the other approaches already suggested (custom format -based
>> and sqlite-based pristine store).
Yes, Daniel, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry, Ash, for not being clear enough.
Of course that's inherently a non-portable solution that may not be
available on all platforms and certainly will differ. But that's
somewhat analogous to support for password storage: in Windows land
there's a standard way to do it, in Unixy lands you have to choose your
favourite third-party subsystem and externally configure Gnome-keyring or KDE-wallet or whatever you chose. Of course there are other
disadvantages too, I just think it would be interesting to compare the
disadvantages with the advantages.
> That's an easy question. The answer is that at *best* they'll do as good
> as in-place compression. However, in practice they'll do much worse.
Ash, what's your measure of "best" here -- just the compression ratio? What about other kinds of goodness such as the automatic recovering of free space, and the ability to present a plain-text view of the file content through the standard filesystem API which eliminates the need for us to implement a plain-text cache in Subversion?
> The
> reason is that the OS level compression works on not only the single file level,
> but actually at the block level. This is to make modifications reasonably fast
> (read compressed data, uncompress, modify, write recompressed data). If the
> complete file is compressed then even changing a single byte (neglecting that no
> storage works on the byte-level anyway) will yield performance that will at
> least linearly degrade by the filesize.
Changing a single byte is an irrelevant scenario, because pristine files are always created in full and then never modified.
>> In short: if 'mount -o compress=yes' provides 90% space savings then
> we
>> would have little reason to implement space-saving solutions in svn itself.
>> But it's the user's, not svn's, responsibility to run that.
By the way, Daniel, I'm not ruling out the possibility that we may want to provide some glue logic so that Subversion can help the user to set up the feature. Without such assistance, only expert users would ever benefit.
It's clearly an interesting topic!
- Julian
Received on 2012-04-04 19:46:10 CEST