On Dec 13, 2017, at 8:31 AM, Tony Papadimitriou <to...@acm.org> wrote:
>
> * The first is the inclusion of un-versioned files which although inflate the
> total file size have no play in the versioning part, which is what I believe
> the compression ratio was meant to highlight.
If unversioned file data isn’t on both sides of the division sign, then yeah,
that’s a bug.
If you’re just saying that unversioned files cannot have delta versions by
their very nature and thus always count 1:1, then the only way I can see to
satisfy you is to have Fossil report the ratios for all artifacts as it does
now plus a separate line for versioned artifacts only. That’s not a matter of
correctness, but instead just a matter of more detailed reporting.
Any other option feels like cooking the books to me.
> * The second is the presence of free pages not yet vacuumed. This is unused
> space that IMO ‘unfairly’ lowers the ratio.
I disagree. The unused free pages *should* be charged against you, because
that is space Fossil is taking on your disk, and thus should be compared to the
size of all the versions checked out.
If you want to restore balance to the Force, run this occasionally:
for f in /museum/*.fossil
do
fossil rebuild -R $f --compress --vacuum --cluster
done
A few months ago, I had a repo go from 39:1 to 43:1 as a result of running
that. That same repo was back up to 42:1 when I started composing this email,
and is now back to 43:1 after running the above again. All four numbers were
correct at the time Fossil reported them.
> the compression ratio is not meaningful in a useful way when the repo
> includes either big un-versioned files
If you have a .zip file at, let us say, 2.1:1 compression ratio because it
mostly contains text files, then you add an MP3 to it, the compression ratio
will drop. Is that also incorrect?
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
