Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Bazaar 1.3 preview

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 11:06 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:

> >>2) The flat-revision subdirectory structure in ~/.arch-cache leads to
> >>huge directories, this is not scalable.
> 
> The arch cache doesn't list directories, so the O(n^2) directory listing 
> time on certain silly filesystems doesn't affect it.  In what was is it 
> not scalable?

directory  traversal will incur this overhead though, and we do
traverse. I'm not sure that this is a problem for us though - even on
such bad filesystems, the kernel should cache the result after the first
read.

> >> Is not version/patchlevel
> >>structure more balanced
> 
> For my money, it doesn't solve anything.  There are archives with 
> thousands of revisions per version, and archives with huge numbers of 
> versions.
> 
> And of course, it's no help at all for archives with one version.
> 
> > and more consistent?
> 
> The Cache was there first.  Why should it be the one to change?

IMO it doesn't .. being a separate object, I don't see there being a
consistency argument at all.

> >       * just grouping revisions by archives leads to too big
> >         directories, that's not a good use filesystem storage.
> 
> If you really want to solve the too-big directories issue, you'll need a 
> more sophisicated approach than just splitting the revision name off the 
> end.

Yah.

Rob

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part