On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:50 AM, Bo Berglund <bo.berglund_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2018 22:20:13 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia
> <nkadel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:37 PM, Keva-Slient <356730059_at_qq.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> inodes usage of my svn server grows up quickly as repositories commits
>>> increasing.
>>> there are many reversion files in xx/db/revs/[0-9]+/[0-9]+.
>>
>>There is "svnadmin pack", which needs to run on the Subversion
>>repository server.
>>
>
> Is this a one-time cleanup operation or does it need to be executed
> regularly? I.e. does running "svnadmin pack" on the repo consolidate
> the many files into a smaller number of big files and set some
> repository property such that it will work that way in the future?
>
> This is what I found in svnbook 1.7 page 178:
>
> "By concatenating all the files of a completed
> shard into a single “pack” file and then removing the original
> per-revision files, svnadmin pack reduces the file count within a
> given shard down to just a single file."
>
> and
Disk space != inodes. You asked about inodes. File systems have a
maximum number of inodes, the maximum number of files directories,
links, etc. that they know how to count for that filesystem at the
time the filesystem is built. Storing information about files takes
space on a filesystem, sot it's notrmally pre-allocated when making
the filesystem. From your own description, you've run out of inodes
and need to free some up, or rebuild your environment to better handle
structures that handle many small files.
> "Repacking packed shards is legal, but will have no effect on the disk
> usage of the repository."
>
> What exactly is a "shard"?
> Is it one of the numerical directories each containing exactly 1000
> files?
It's one of the files in those directories.
> If so the "shard" storage on my repos seem to only cost at most 4%
> extra disk space compared to using a single file (comparing file sizes
> against disk usage).
> Or will compression of the "svnadmin pack" operation make the combined
> size of the files even smaller? I.e. it does not only save unused file
> allocation space but actually packs the content even better?
Please stop confusing "inode" with "disk space" It's more like you've
run out of boxes to put things in, i.e. inodes, than running out of
space to store store the boxes (i.e., disk space).
> --
> Bo Berglund
> Developer in Sweden
>
Received on 2018-01-03 15:52:37 CET