Thomas Harold wrote on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:50:45 -0400: > On 6/17/2011 10:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >Thomas Harold wrote on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:31:43 -0400: > >>And if you have a choice of file systems for the repository to be stored > >>on, make sure that it's something which can deal with a few hundred > >>thousand tiny files. On Linux, I'd suggest going with ext4 over ext3. > >>While db/revs in a FSFS repository can have its revisions packed to > >>reduce the file count, the db/revprops folder still consists of 1 tiny > >>file for every revision in the project in a FSFS repository. > > > >revprops/ is sharded. > > > >And in 1.7 (including the recent 1.7.0-alpha1) it is packed, too. > > > > Good. Another of the many reasons that we're looking forward to 1.7. > > Even with the sharding, those little revprop files are causing us > issues during backups (hotcopy -> rdiff-backup). Being able to pack > those revprop files is going to make a big difference as the backup > process will only have to track 2000-2200 files instead of 30,000 to > 50,000. > > (We have a few long-lived repositories with up to 25k revisions. > And I just finished splitting a 22GB repository with 15-16k revs > into a bunch of smaller repositories. Now the nightly backup can > look at doing a hotcopy on only the repositories with changes in the > last 5 days.)
See also: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3815
