One could also have the revprops stored as single files if they are modified
after packing. The lookup code would first try to open the single revprop file
and if it doesn't exist, then it goes to the packaged file. The packer could
allow for multiple repackings.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I see a couple of options:
> 1) Start storing revprops in SQLite. We are already using it for
> rep-sharing. This removes the need to pack the revprops and possibly
> even opens the door for future features users have asked for, such as
> being able to query revprops.
> 2) Allow packing of revprops, but issue an error if an attempt is made
> to edit a packed revision. This seems like a pretty small need.
> Perhaps rev 0 could always be unpacked since there are some tools that
> store things in the revprops of rev 0.
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Osvaldo Pinali Doederlein
> <osvaldo_at_visionnaire.com.br> wrote:
>> I started this RFE in the Subversion blog: "Packing of the /db/revprops
>> shards. These are still accumulating hundreds of thousands of TINY files
>> (avg 150 bytes) in my poor Windows server (NTFS really doesn't like
>> small files)... with packing, each of these 1000 prop files would be
>> replaced by a single ~150Kb blob."
>> Answer from Hyrum Wright: "Revprops are mutable, and as such their size
>> may change. Modifying a packed revprop would cause the entire shard to
>> be rewritten, not just the modified value. Aside from the performance
>> issues, this also causes race conditions when multiple revprops are
>> being edited at the same time. All of these concerns mean that packing
>> of revprops probably won't happen any time soon. What might happen is a
>> migration of revprops to a better storage mechanism, such as sqlite,
>> though there are no current plans for that."
>> Even though revprops packing (with an ideal behavior) is not easy to
>> implement, it's still a highly desirable feature so I propose opening a
>> bug to track it. I have some suggestions that may even make this viable
>> for an 1.6.x update:
>> - Yes revprops are mutable, but in practice they are mostly-readonly
>> data, remarkably for old revisions. It's not uncommon that revprops
>> changes be blocked (e.g. SourceForge.net did that until recently). In
>> many companies this is also mandated. In such cases, revprops ARE
>> read-only, so revprops could be packed trivially (with the same simple
>> file layout used by packed revs).
>> - So, in a first attempt we could have a simple implementation of packed
>> revprops, with the following constraint: Once a specific revprops shard
>> is packed, any further attempt to change any of those revprops will be
>> refused. The admin could use hooks to make the whole thing smoother,
>> e.g. making sure that complete shards are only packed if older than a
>> month, or disallowing revprops updates even in non-packed revisions so
>> the rule is simpler and there are no update failures.
>> - Additionally, the update of packed revprops could be supported (with
>> the same simple storage format) even though it COULD be an expensive
>> operation (lock the entire shard or even the entire repo, rewrite it
>> completely). It's a reasonable option if, for somebody's repo, revprop
>> updates are permitted but not very common. For some users (like my
>> company), that don't make heavy use of revprops, those packed shards
>> weight in the low hundreds of Kb, so the brute-force update would still
>> run in a split-second with NO usability disadvantage at all.
>> - This initial design wouldn't require a new repository format. We could
>> just have an option like "svnadmin pack --revprops", so by default (with
>> format=5) only revs are packed, but one could optionally pack the
>> revprops too. The fsfs layer would have to detect if a revprops shard is
>> packed, but this is necessary anyway (just like with packed revs)
>> because the most recent shard is typically not packed. If a future
>> version of SVN introduces a smarter storage for packed revprops that can
>> handle frequent updates with low overhead and no coarse-grained locking,
>> that would be accommodated and distinguished by a different repository
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-04-24 22:12:59 CEST