[darcs-users] Is darcs optimize --compress still useful?

Petr Rockai me at mornfall.net
Tue Mar 17 10:21:37 UTC 2009


trentbuck at gmail.com (Trent W. Buck) writes:
> AFAICT the only way uncompressed files would require less memory is if
> Darcs kept both the compressed AND uncompressed copies of the file in
> memory.  I seem to recall that this was a problem in older releases, but
> was fixed around the 2.1 or 2.2 release.
>
> That being the case, can we get rid of these options, and (eventually)
> get rid of support for uncompressed patches altogether?
Not really. The difference is that uncompressed patches can be mmaped, and are
therefore more efficient than compressed (with saved space being on the edge of
measurability, since quite many compressed patches take the same number of
filesystem blocks as their uncompressed counterparts...).

Yours,
   Petr.

-- 
Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com
 http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net

"In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be
 indented six feet downward and covered with dirt."
     -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation


More information about the darcs-users mailing list