lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: revision control for the kernel (BitKeeper)
    From: lm@bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)

The bandwidth isn't a big problem, but the disk space is an issue.
It does use more space to have this stuff under revision control and I
want to discuss that to see if it is acceptable to the community. Here's
an example: consider just the Historic kernels (0.1 .. 0.99.15, 38 in all).

Size What
17M All 38 tarballs gzipped
11M All 38 versions checked into BitKeeper
1.8M All 38 versions checked into BitKeeper and bzip2-ed
.5M The 0.99.15 tarball, gzipped

The bad news is that I have a feeling that we might be looking at
a 100-200MB repository for all the history going back to the beginning.

Hmm.

-rw-r--r-- 1 aeb aeb 1230386 Feb 3 1994 linux-0.99.15.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 aeb aeb 13080195 Jan 26 02:41 linux-2.2.0.tar.gz

.5M is a really rough estimate for 1230386 bytes.

% du -sc patches*
115 patches-1.0
14895 patches-1.1
1020 patches-1.2
36886 patches-1.3
3309 patches-1.99
28975 patches-2.0
118108 patches-2.1
73 patches-2.2
8125 patches-2.2pre
211506 total
% du -s /g1/linux
1310519 /g1/linux

The actual patches (maybe very few prepatches included)
take somewhat over 200 MB uncompressed (context diffs).
Maybe this is about the size one should expect for a
source control system. It can represent the diffs more
compactly if they do not create new files, but there is
some more overhead.

A complete archive including lots of marginally related stuff
takes 1.3 GB here, less than 10% of a $350 disk.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:1.252 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site