Hi, > Thanks to meeting and chatting with you at the hackathon, I have a much > better grasp of our current --hashed performance problems. > > As you explained it, one problem is that on the one hand, hashed > pristine files can be shared across branches via hard-linking while on > the other hand, darcs operations in one branch will synch the timestamps > on those files with their working dir equivalents, thus invalidating the > timestamps for the other branch. (So far so good?) So far so good.
> One question: what if, as a temporary measure, we made a special > exception that pristine cache files are copied from the caches, rather > than linked from them. Patches will still be hard-linked, so we get > most of the speedups, but pristine cache files will be copied to avoid > the timestamp problem. Would this scheme work, i.e. by giving people > the benefits of hashed repos (robustness, lazy get, caches) without > making them pay the price of interminable Reading Pristines? Well, there are two sides to this. Pristine cache size can be far from negligible -- even though it's compressed, it's still roughly the same size as your working copy. My rough estimate is that not hardlinking means about 30% increase of disk space usage per branch... Whether that's reasonable, I can't tell. It will also make local gets even slower than they already are. Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
