[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees

From: Chris Mason
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:18:46 -0500

On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 20:49, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Chris Mason <address@hidden>
>     > 1) Do inode signatures actually help performance in the current form?  I
>     > think they make most uses slower (except revision libraries).  
> A while back, briefly, they improved performance for implicit or
> tagline trees.  Currently, they do impose a new cost -- for the return
> of increasing safety.  The safety concern is worth it, I think --
> those costs aren't likely to go away.

Ok, the safety point of view is different.  If we want the inode sigs
for safety or other cool features, we just need to make it faster to
update them.

> (The other pending issue is that they hork some NFS implementations.
> That has to be fixed.)
>     > 2) Does a reverse mapping safely allow arch_apply_changeset to skip
>     > whole tree inventories?  
> Unlikely but I haven't dug into it yet.

By definition of the changeset, I think it has to allow a partial
inventory.  Either the changeset somehow describes all files and ids
involved in it, or the format is  broken.

In the end, I agree with Miles about putting the inode sigs and id
mappings into an indexed database file.  It adds complexity, but the end
result seems worth it.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]