Re: Kernel SCM saga..

Matthias-Christian Ott
2005-04-08T19:16:49Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Apr 2005, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
>
>
>>Ok, but if you want to search for information in such big text files it
>>slow, because you do linear search
>>
>>
>
>No I don't. I don't search for _anything_. I have my own
>content-addressable filesystem, and I guarantee you that it's faster than
>mysql, because it depends on the kernel doing the right thing (which it
>does).
>
>
>
I'm not talking about mysql, i'm talking about fast databases like
sqlite or db4.

>I never do a single "readdir". It's all direct data lookup, no "searching"
>anywhere.
>
>Databases aren't magical. Quite the reverse. They easily end up being
>_slower_ than doing it by hand, simply because they have to solve a much
>more generic issue. If you design your data structures and abstractions
>right, a database is pretty much guaranteed to only incur overhead.
>
>The advantage of a database is the abstraction and management it gives
>you. But I did my own special-case abstraction in git.
>
>Yeah, I bet "git" might suck if your OS sucks. I definitely depend on name
>caching at an OS level so that I know that opening a file is fast. In
>other words, there _is_ an indexing and caching database in there, and
>it's called the Linux VFS layer and the dentry cache.
>
>The proof is in the pudding. git is designed for _one_ thing, and one
>thing only: tracking a series of directory states in a way that can be
>replicated. It's very very fast at that. A database with a more flexible
>abstraction migt be faster at other things, but the fact is, you do take a
>hit.
>
>The problem with databases are:
>
> - they are damn hard to just replicate wildly and without control. The
> database backing file inherently has a lot of internal state. You may
> be able to "just copy it", but you have to copy the whole damn thing.
>
>
This is _not_ true for every database (specialy plain/text databases
with meta information).

> In "git", the data is all there in immutable blobs that you can just
> rsync. In fact, you don't even need rsync: you can just look at the
> filenames, and anything new you copy. No need for any fancy "read the
> files to see that they match". They _will_ match, or you can tell
> immediately that a file is corrupt.
>
> Look at this:
>
> torvalds@ppc970:~/git> sha1sum .dircache/objects/e7/bfaadd5d2331123663a8f14a26604a3cdcb678
> e7bfaadd5d2331123663a8f14a26604a3cdcb678 .dircache/objects/e7/bfaadd5d2331123663a8f14a26604a3cdcb678
>
> see a pattern anywhere? Imagine that you know the list of files you
> have, and the list of files the other side has (never mind the
> contents), and how _easy_ it is to synchronize. Without ever having to
> even read the remote files that you know you already have.
> How do you replicate your database incrementally? I've given you enough
> clues to do it for "git" in probably five lines of perl.
>
>
I replicate my database incremently by using a hash list like you (the
client sends its hash list, the server compares the lists and acquaints
the client behind which data (data = hash + data) the data has to added
(this is like your solution -- you also submit the data and the location
(you have directories too, right?)). A database is in some cases (like
this one) like a filesystem, but it's build one top of better filesystem
like xfs, reiser4 or ext3 which support features like LVM, Quotas or
Journaling (Is your filesystem also build on top of existing filesystem?
I don't think so because you're talking about vfs operatations on the
filesystem).

> - they tend to take time to set up and prime.
>
> In contrast, the filesystem is always there. Sure, you effectively have
> to "prime" that one too, but the thing is, if your OS is doing its job,
> you basically only need to prime it once per reboot. No need to prime
> it for each process you start or play games with connecting to servers
> etc. It's just there. Always.
>
>
The database -- single file (sqlite or db4) -- is always there too
because it's on the filesystem and doesn't need a server.

>So if you think of the filesystem as a database, you're all set. If you
>design your data structure so that there is just one index, you make that
>the name, and the kernel will do all the O(1) hashed lookups etc for you.
>You do have to limit yourself in some ways.
>
>
But as mentioned you need to _open_ each file (It doesn't matter if it's
cached (this speeds up only reading it) -- you need a _slow_ system call
and _very slow_ hardware access anyway).
Have a look at this comparison:
If you have big chest and lots of small chests containing the same bulk
of gold, it's more work to collect the gold from the small chests than
from the big one (which would contain as many a cases as little chests
exist). You can faster find your gold because you don't have to walk to
the other chests and you don't have to open that much caps which saves
also time.

>Oh, and you have to be willing to waste diskspace. "git" is _not_
>space-efficient. The good news is that it is cache-friendly, since it is
>also designed to never actually look at any old files that aren't part of
>the immediate history, so while it wastes diskspace, it does not waste the
>(much more precious) page cache.
>
>IOW big file-sets are always bad for performance if you need to traverse
>them to get anywhere, but if you index things so that you only read the
>stuff you really really _need_ (which git does), big file-sets are just an
>excuse to buy a new disk ;)
>
> Linus
>
>
>
I hope my idea/opinion is clear now.

Matthias-Christian