On Tuesday 02 September 2008, Petr Rockai wrote: > Hi, > > Dan Pascu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you want to go this path, why not use a database to store the > > data? Berkeley DB or SQLite should do just fine and they are most > > likely much faster in accessing the data that any archive, while > > giving you the same single file storage advantage (well maybe 3: > > pristine, patches and inventories). It won't give you the compression > > advantage (though you could store compressed data in them if that is > > really desired), but that is less of an issue I believe, as disk > > space is cheap and some stuff is already compressed (patches). Such a > > solution will definitely avoid the limited number of files per > > directory issue and can even offer the benefits of a hashed > > repository (no direct access to pristine to accidentally modify > > files), but without the need to hash the files, since they can be > > stored verbatim in the database. This would also make it slightly > > faster as the need to hash the files will dissapear. > > it should also be noted, that it would make http repository access next > to impossible and other remote access pretty tricky. Also, hashing the > files gives us much better consistency and robustness guarantees than > any of the mentioned "database" engines ever pretended.
Hmmm, you're right. I have forgotten about all these details. Bad idea in the end, please disregard. -- Dan _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
