On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 10:29 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> I can only really speak for the BDB side of things, but... "what he said".
>
> I'll elaborate a little bit. API issues aside, we're used to putting
> artifacts from different versi
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 10:29 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I can only really speak for the BDB side of things, but... "what he said".
I'll elaborate a little bit. API issues aside, we're used to putting
artifacts from different versions in different places. More so in FSFS,
where it was baked
On 02/01/2011 04:43 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> You do know that "diff" and "delta" are two different beasts, and that
> the diff optimizations have no effect on deltas? :)
>
> The problem with directory deltification lies in the length of the delta
> chain and the frequency of directory lookup comp
You do know that "diff" and "delta" are two different beasts, and that
the diff optimizations have no effect on deltas? :)
The problem with directory deltification lies in the length of the delta
chain and the frequency of directory lookup compared to file access. The
sad fact is that our director
Philip and I had an interesting conversation with some users this
evening, and I'm just archiving my brain dump here.
These users have a large repository with a large number of branches in
the /branches directory (~35k). We described the well-known
phenomenon in which directories aren't deltified
5 matches
Mail list logo
