uberbaum and fileattr

[Angela Marie Thomas]

> On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 03:04:33PM -0800, Angela Marie Thomas wrote:
> > > The short summary is that I found the stock 1.11.1p1 takes about
> > > twice as long as 1.10 + fileattr patches.  As I note in the posting,
> 
> > I wonder what the difference is if cvs-tmp is a ramdisk and most of the
> > active bits of the repository are in disk cache.  
> 
> Ian already pointed out that this is a separate optimization, but
> I'd also note that it is a tricky one to do right.  The size of
> your cvs-tmp ramdisk must be the size of the largest possible
> checkout.  That would probably be the src repository, or possibly
> gcc.

Right, but to decide whether an optimization is worth it, you need to
measure the entire system.  It may be that the speed of a system with
other optimizations is fast enough that the fileattr optimization is
negligible.  A lot of things have changed between the time it was first
written and today.  Our internal CVS server is running very noticeably
faster with significantly more RAM and a ramdisk for /tmp.

> You can declare this worst case to be too unlikely to skip the obvious
> ramdisk optimization, but it's good to be aware of it.

I don't see how this is any different from cvs-tmp running out of disk
space.  What am I missing?

--Angela