[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CVS and gdbm?

From: Max Bowsher
Subject: Re: CVS and gdbm?
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 09:46:53 +0100

address@hidden wrote:
> On  5 Sep, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>  > Is there any further info on configuring CVS to use gdbm?  Especially,
>>  > benchmarks?
>>  No benchmarks, but the "appropriate edits" to use gdbm exist in the
>>  package of cvs.
> Interesting.  That would explain the recent Cygwin announcement of the
> need to use the conversion program following the recent changes to gdbm.
> So I take it that there's some benefit seen in using gdbm; presumably
> related to performance?  But that for some reason it's not considered
> the right choice to make it the default for Unix.  (Perhaps because
> Unix people prefer to use plain text where possible, to leverage from
> all those existing plain text utilities.)

There are 2 separate issues - text/dbm and ndbm/gdbm.

This is supposed to be an optimization option for repositories with truly
huge modules and/or val-tags files. I don't know of any benchmarks to
quantify the effect.

ndbm (.dir/.pag) is not functional on FAT filesystems, hence not suitable
for use on Cygwin.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]