From users-return-18240-apmail-subversion-users-archive=subversion.apache.org@subversion.apache.org Thu Jun 6 12:56:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40BF710C1F for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 12:56:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 78419 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2013 12:56:31 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 78311 invoked by uid 500); 6 Jun 2013 12:56:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 78304 invoked by uid 99); 6 Jun 2013 12:56:30 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:56:30 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of harper.andre@gmail.com designates 209.85.128.45 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.128.45] (HELO mail-qe0-f45.google.com) (209.85.128.45) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:56:23 +0000 Received: by mail-qe0-f45.google.com with SMTP id q19so1833768qeb.4 for ; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:56:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0N/lfX+BLdH2pTC4AMbnUgC7oRX84mrQ6IeryQLwlYo=; b=KgD1fm7dDuPtgPV6BvPvQfdpyVwH+BfsXqV3EZ2VRULeT1s+YMhvryYZveXbP7+v4i Lx55np1D2IlFZS3jj6Qu/YmElaQXyruKwWai1yyTaYlX1PohjBq5o3ADMyW8P7YgJsPr MRaqK1tGGWzClfHnJB2qtX238DYzm6KgDP4H6JFIosE0/OOvkUtSttzZd37LMyjNJrUh jE1xL83gcUEp6imRjQmwLbeAdMIAMJKC3bQXbwfkHhjyCjvZtNcFgSmWTh0DL45oz9pW Qbhnkbs8QQvN8UOZno3wy6cSP6CNCMuWNm7CTEfvRilZ4kCXTjvKzVFWYojUMvQwL+87 Jd2Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.229.160.144 with SMTP id n16mr1724545qcx.154.1370523362903; Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:56:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.13.73 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jun 2013 05:56:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:56:02 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: large db/revs files From: Andre Harper To: Mark Phippard Cc: "users@subversion.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae9472d5b33cab404de7bd6ec X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --14dae9472d5b33cab404de7bd6ec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for everyone=92s replies. Took me a couple days to review the links everyone sent. Thorsten=92s links sent me to several of your posts, Mark -- thanks. Based on your feedback it appears the new release of svn within a month or so should resolve the problem. It appears the best solution is to wait until then. But, I did want to follow-up on the questions Thorsten & Olli had. Here is an example of our directory structure: projectA/ trunk/ tags/ release100_06062013_0809/ release100_06062013_0810/ =85 branches/ The tags are at the same directory level, which supports the inclination you had, Thorsten. I wasn=92t aware that tagging a directory replicates the complete directory structure in db/res, which contains the largest files in our repo. The other directories are reasonable. The source of the largest db/rev repo, which has 141,573 revisions, is 780K. If I understand the skip-delta cost, which I may not completely, it sounds like each tagged release based on the trunk will occupy more space as it is farther away from the trunk revision number? Thanks. Andr=E9 Harper --14dae9472d5b33cab404de7bd6ec Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for everyone=92s replies.

Took me a couple d= ays to review the links everyone sent. =A0

Thorsten=92s links sent m= e to several of your posts, Mark -- thanks.=A0 Based on your feedback it ap= pears the new release of svn within a month or so should resolve the proble= m.=A0 It appears the best solution is to wait until then.

But, I did want to follow-up on the questions Thorsten & Olli had.= =A0 Here is an example of our directory structure: =A0

projectA/
= =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 trunk/
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 tags/
=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 release100_06062013_0809/
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0 release100_06062013_0810/
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=A0= =A0 =85
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 branches/

The tags are at the sa= me directory level, which supports the inclination you had, Thorsten. I was= n=92t aware that tagging a directory replicates the complete directory stru= cture in db/res, which contains the largest files in our repo.=A0 The other= directories are reasonable.=A0 The source of the largest db/rev repo, whic= h has 141,573 revisions, is 780K.

If I understand the skip-delta cost, which I may not completely, it sou= nds like each tagged release based on the trunk will occupy more space as i= t is farther away from the trunk revision number? =A0

Thanks.
And= r=E9 Harper
--14dae9472d5b33cab404de7bd6ec--