[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only |
Date: |
15 Mar 2004 11:07:01 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>>> For each file, The first check tla does is stats against the revision
>>> library. This is the cheapest check it can do. If the files are
>>> hardlinks of each other, the working copy hasn't changed.
>> In my world, this *never* happens, so it's a complete waste of time.
> In my world, it's faster.
Faster than what?
>> Even if this works for you (i.e. you use --link), it still requires two
>> stats per file, so it's still slower than the inode-sig check below.
>> Sounds like a pessimization to me.
> We had to do the stats anyway, to make sure that the file type and
> permissions haven't changed. That code reuses the lstat results that are
> already necessary, so it's zero-cost.
I don't understand what you're talking about.
We need:
- one stat per work-tree file.
- compare this result with a known value (which can come from the
work-tree's inode-sigs or from the rev-lib).
Getting the known value from the worktree's inode-sigs can be done without
any stat (just one big read and then in-memory searches). I do see that
doing stats in the revlib will not be much slower if things are hardlinked
because the work-tree stats already brought the inodes in the cache, but
I can't see any reason why it would be faster than using the worktree's
inode-sigs.
>> Also the work-tree inode-sigs need to be updated more often than just
>> during `commit' so they're more effective..
> I don't see the need here. Are you frequently modifying and undoing large
> numbers of files? Because for the 3-files-have-been-reverted case, it's
> just not worth it.
No, but I have several trees where I mostly never do `commit': I mostly do
star-merge, or things like that. By now almost all files where modified by
star-merge, so their inode-sigs don't match even though `tla changes'
only lists three modified files.
> Perhaps what we need is a gen-inode-sigs command, so the user can assert
> that the revlib is okay. (presumably after an md5sum check or something)
Yes, that would help. I have already been several times in the situation
where tla refuses to use a revlib even though I'm pretty sure it's
not corrupted (but its device-number has changed, or it has been copied
from one drive to another).
Stefan
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Sri Ramkrishna, 2004/03/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/14
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/14
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only,
Stefan Monnier <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/15
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Charles Duffy, 2004/03/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla on nfs only, Stefan Monnier, 2004/03/16
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla on nfs only, Anders Rune Jensen, 2004/03/09