On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 07:37:02PM +0200, Martin Uecker wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:11:00AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > The rsync approach does not use fixed chunk boundaries; this is necessary
> > to ensure good storage reuse for the expected case (ie; inserting a single
> > lin
On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 11:11:00AM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> >The right thing (TM) is to switch from SHA1 of compressed
> >content for the complete monolithic file to a merkle hash tree
> >of the uncompressed content. This would make the hash
>
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Martin Uecker wrote:
The right thing (TM) is to switch from SHA1 of compressed
content for the complete monolithic file to a merkle hash tree
of the uncompressed content. This would make the hash
independent of the actual storage method (chunked or not).
It would certainly be n
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 12:11:43PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> >
> > So I guess I'll have to implement this and find out, won't I? =)
>
> The best way to shup somebody up is always to just do it, and say "hey, I
> told you so". It's hard to arg
nel.org
Subject: Re: space compression (again)
For for this email not threading properly, I have been lurking on the
mail list archives and just had to reply to this message.
I was planning to ask exactly this question, and Scott beat me to to. I
even wanted to call them "chunks" too. :-)
For for this email not threading properly, I have been lurking on the
mail list archives and just had to reply to this message.
I was planning to ask exactly this question, and Scott beat me to to. I
even wanted to call them "chunks" too. :-)
It's probably worthwhile for anyone discussing this su
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
> So I guess I'll have to implement this and find out, won't I? =)
The best way to shup somebody up is always to just do it, and say "hey, I
told you so". It's hard to argue with numbers.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this l
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 02:45:55PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > - we already have wasted space due to the low-level filesystem (as
> > opposed to "git") usually being block-based, which means that space
> > utilization for small objects tends to suck. So you really want to
> > prefer ob
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 01:19:30PM -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Why are blobs per-file? [After all, Linus insists that files are an
> illusion.] Why not just have 'chunks', and assemble *these*
> into blobs (read, 'files')? A good chunk size would fit evenly into some
> number of disk blo
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
The problem with chunking is:
- it complicates a lot of the routines. Things like "is this file
unchanged" suddenly become "is this file still the same set of chunks",
which is just a _lot_ more code and a lot more likely to have bugs.
The blob still h
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
>
> Why are blobs per-file? [After all, Linus insists that files are an
> illusion.] Why not just have 'chunks', and assemble *these*
> into blobs (read, 'files')? A good chunk size would fit evenly into some
> number of disk blocks (no wasted s
I've been reading the archives (a bad idea, I know). Here's a concrete
suggestion for GIT space-compression which is (I believe) consistent with
the philosophy of GIT.
Why are blobs per-file? [After all, Linus insists that files are an
illusion.] Why not just have 'chunks', and assemble *the
12 matches
Mail list logo
