Re: Packing, again

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 04:21 +0100, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> > The MinimalStorageMarker method 
> > claims to be between 20% and 80% faster -- is it just as stable? I note
> > that I could just create a 'misc/packing' and link it to a different
> > drive.
> 
> Memory usage patterns are different, so I wouldnt guarantee success.
> 
> It is still layered on top of the normal disaster-recovery mechanisms, so you 
> should never unrecoverably loose data.  If all goes wrong, just rename the 
> *-deleted files. I think its safe to try.

Ok. My results. Using Minimal results is O(1) for pass 1, and appears to
be pretty much O(n) for the other passes -- overall it took 330 seconds
to pack (without deleting at the end) a 1.3GB storage (5x times larger
than the last test). It took less than 1/5 of the time to pack than the
smaller storage (not by much).

It didn't ever appear to use more than about 10M of diskspace, and sod-
all memory. Minimal is looking like a good packing strategy -- I'll have
to see how it copes on a much larger storage this weekend.


--Richard



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click