From 0825a4db52c4272b7a3537cfc59d59e33b0234af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "amerlyq+annex@12121d70a602f094228689a0a24d348d478a8af1" Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2020 03:46:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] --- ...emove_sha-inside-sha_single-file-dirs.mdwn | 20 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/Plans_on_tunable_to_remove_sha-inside-sha_single-file-dirs.mdwn diff --git a/doc/forum/Plans_on_tunable_to_remove_sha-inside-sha_single-file-dirs.mdwn b/doc/forum/Plans_on_tunable_to_remove_sha-inside-sha_single-file-dirs.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..df9226fcb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/Plans_on_tunable_to_remove_sha-inside-sha_single-file-dirs.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +I still don't like repeated name inside each symlink. + +I enabled every tunable I found to make it sane for me: ./git/annex/objects/xxx/SHA256-.../SHA256-... +I expect to have no more than 1.000.000 files which I care about even if I live till 100 years, which nicely fit into performance window of filesystem of 4096 folders with 5000 files each. +I don't care about readonly files -- I have BTRFS snapshots and weekly backups for the case of unintentional disaster and corruption of some files till SHA don't match anymore. +I don't care about nice distributed lock-free mechanics of git annex -- I always commit each new annex file as separate commit and don't mess with scripting git write operations in my repo. +What I care is symlinks length -- to fit into my screen width in terminal file manager, repo performance and underlying git repo size -- all of which are dependent on the length of path till the real file. + +What I found reading git-annex forum/todo/bugs and datalad issues for two month -- all are old discussions, ideas and maybe obsolete plans. +I even found somewhere proposal for single-lock model of working for git-annex. + +* https://git-annex.branchable.com/design/new_repo_versions/ +* https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues/32 + +Yet what I did not found is the status of the idea to add such tunable to git-annex. +Deadly unsafe tunable to drop nested SHA-SHA folder would totally satisfy me -- and I would immediately go writing scripts to replay whole my git history onto the freshly initialized git-annex with new symlinks. +Especially if waiting for "more safe" single-lock git-annex w/o SHA-SHA may take years. + +So, what is the status of plans? +Do you have any idea how many years (or month?) left to wait until the idea will brew enough to become vital and git-annex codebase transforms into more suitable state to implement such tunable? -- 2.30.2