|
From: | Jon Bright |
Subject: | Re: [Monotone-devel] [sqlite] disk locality (and delta storage) |
Date: | Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:12:49 +0100 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) |
address@hidden wrote:
This comparison is not really fair to RCS since the RCS file is uncompressed and because the RCS file contains revision comments and other meta information omitted from my chains. But I have never heard anybody complain that their RCS files where too big. So if you can store both forward and backwards chains in less space than an RCS file, you solve your speed problem and you still come out ahead of CVS on storage space efficiency.
At least for me, even if it came out larger than the RCS files, I don't care - so long as we're only talking about disk space, not netsync. In the days of cheap 300GB disks, normal code is never going to take up enough space that I really notice. We're still using normal DSL lines, though (and some people are still using modems), so netsync bandwidth *is* interesting.
The one place I can think of where this strategy doesn't work is for people doing revision control of 600MB .iso files, or something similarly large. Those people would probably prefer the cost of an additional delta to be as small as possible. This is clearly not the normal case, though - and even for those people, their deltas might be small, even though their files are large.
-- Jon
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |