Compressing weaved revisions?

[Martin Pool]

On 01/10/05, John A Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> wrote:

Bear in mind that some filesystems (ext2/3, reiserfs, ntfs, probably
some others) will store small files in less than a block, so the
actual disk usage is not necessarily as bad as du indicates.  I think
du can't detect fractional block usage.

If we just want to store things in a single file to avoid using
inodes/blocks and multiple http requests then weave seems like
overkill.


> using a zipfile is another reasonable possibility, as the file is
> indexed, giving us a decent time to get to the entries. You can append
> to it (though if you crash in the middle, most readers will consider it
> completely corrupted).

I think this is a pretty interesting idea, particularly as Python has
a builtin zipfile class.  I don't know if zip is efficient at random
access to lots of tiny files; it might not be.

Another approach is to use a local database like tdb or sqlite.

--
Martin