Here is a spreadsheet of the comparison between the disk usage (du -k)
values of v1.2 and v2.0.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pZVJhnHN3LjuF5FjgmXnrRQ&gid=0

There are 2 sheets. The first sheet stops at the ${version} dir in the
repo structure. The 2nd sheet goes all the way into the repo tree.

It's a google spreadsheet. I don't know how I can share this so that
all can edit it. But just ask me and I will give you permission.

Cheers
Prasad

On 6/28/07, Jay D. McHugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are right Prasad,

I messed something up when I was building my tables.
"repository/geronimo" is in the installed directory but not in my database.

I'll rebuild the table and see what comes out.  Also, I'll 'map' the
"repository/geronimo" to "repository/org/apache/geronimo" so that the
table makes sense.


Jay

Prasad Kashyap wrote:
> Matt, Jay,
>
> The repository shifted from repository/geronimo to repository/o.a.g
> from v1.2 onwards. We'd have to compare it against that directory to
> get a good picture.. I added the same comments to your wiki page.
>
> 
http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/GMOxDEV/Installed+size+comparison+%281.1.1%2C+1.2%2C+2.0%29?focusedCommentId=60511#comment-60511
>
>
> Please check out a similar comparison between just 1.2 and 2.0.
> http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pZVJhnHN3LjuF5FjgmXnrRQ
>
> This can be tuned further.
>
> Cheers
> Prasad
>
> On 6/27/07, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Jay D. McHugh wrote:
>>
>> > In order to (hopefully) simplify finding where the increase in
>> > footprint size comes from, I made a new page on the wiki:
>> >
>> > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/x/TOw
>> >
>> > Jay
>> >>
>>
>> Jay, this is excellent.  Clearly the pesky repository is a major
>> contributor.  It is interesting that the growth from 1.1.1 to 1.2 and
>> beyond.  I'm wondering if the Maven transient dependencies have
>> anything to do with this ?
>>
>> >> Me ! Me ! Me !
>> >>
>> >> Cheers
>> >> Prasad
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>

Reply via email to