[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
Cygwin
>> 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.
text/dbm:
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/gdbm:
ndbm (.dir/.pag) is not functional on FAT filesystems, hence not suitable
for use on Cygwin.
Max.