Re: is "db/revs" always going to be one flat directory (FSFS)?

"Holger Hoffstaette" <holger@wizards.de> writes:
> Unfortunately this does not address the really important question, which
> is "did he use directory indexing", i.e. was the partition mounted &
> optimized with the dir_index option?

I don't know. You might want to ask him.

> Not to rain on anybody's parade - I have completely replaced bdb with fsfs
> everywhere with great success - but putting everything into 1 directory
> was quite shortsighted, IMHO. :(

Well, it was simply a reluctance to prematurely optimize.

Remember, it would be a simple matter to (compatibly) change the
layout of the FSFS revs to use some sort of log(N) tree scheme.
However, they went for simplicity in the first design, which I think
was a good decision. So if there turn out to be serious problems,
then they can be solved.

It would indeed be "shortsighted" if there were no escape hatch, but
fortunately there is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 1 17:04:25 2004