Hyrum K Wright wrote on Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 13:54:25 -0500: > As mentioned elsewhere, I too was surprised by the choice of a custom > container, though I think you make a good argument for it. One > simplification I was thinking about is this: what if the container > only needed to support add and batch-delete operations? These are the > current contraints of the existing pristine store; would they > introduce additional simplicity into your design? > > In some respects, it looks like you're solving *two* problems: > compression and the internal fragmentation due to large FS block > sizes. How orthogonal are the problems? Could they be solved > independently of each other in some way? I know that compression > exposes the internal fragmentation issue, but used alone it certainly > doesn't make things *worse* does it? >
Personally I've also been wondering, while reading the design doc, how applicable are the solutions to libsvn_fs -- or if they could be modularized in a way that lets libsvn_fs re-use parts of them, etc. I haven't found much so far, but this is another angle to look at things from.
