On Thursday 10 May 2007 21:38, Bob Ham wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 00:36 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Wednesday 09 May 2007 20:28, Bob Ham wrote: > > > That was what I proposed near the start of this thread. I would note, > > > as well, that the store-shrinking code should already exist for cases > > > when the user reduces the configured size of the store. > > > > It does, but as I have already stated at least once, it is difficult to > > efficiently do an online shrink while preserving the most recently used > > data. > > > > It is of course possible. One way to do it is to swap the key you'd be > > deleting with the least recently used key just before truncating. > > What's your point?
The point is that as presently implemented we have two ways to shrink a store: - Online, fast, doesn't preserve most valuable data. - Offline, slow, does preserve most valuable data. Obviously the latter is preferred but we can only do it on startup. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20070510/70c0b8c0/attachment.pgp>
