From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: "C. Scott Ananian" <cscott@cscott.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: space compression (again)
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:34:19 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504151117360.7211@ppc970.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0504151232160.27637@cag.csail.mit.edu>
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 space!).
I actually considered that. I ended up not doing it, because it's not
obvious how to "block" things up (and even more so because while I like
the notion, it flies in the face of the other issues I had: performance
and simplicity).
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.
- you have to find a blocking factor. I thought of just going it fixed
chunks, and that just doesn't help at all.
- 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 objects that are several kB (compressed), and a small block just
wastes tons of space.
- there _is_ a natural blocking factor already. That's what a file
boundary really is within the project, and finding any other is really
quite hard.
So I'm personally 100% sure that it's not worth it. But I'm not opposed to
the _concept_: it makes total sense in the "filesystem" view, and is 100%
equivalent to having an inode with pointers to blocks. I just don't think
the concept plays out well in reality.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-15 18:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-15 17:19 space compression (again) C. Scott Ananian
2005-04-15 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2005-04-15 18:45 ` C. Scott Ananian
2005-04-15 19:00 ` Derek Fawcus
2005-04-15 19:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-16 14:39 ` Martin Uecker
2005-04-16 15:11 ` C. Scott Ananian
2005-04-16 17:37 ` Martin Uecker
2005-04-19 12:39 ` Martin Uecker
2005-04-15 18:50 ` Derek Fawcus
2005-04-15 19:33 Ray Heasman
2005-04-16 12:29 ` David Lang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.58.0504151117360.7211@ppc970.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=cscott@cscott.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).