Re: [RFC/PATCH v4 00/49] Add initial experimental external ODB support

Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:

On Sat, Jul 1, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Christian Couder [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

I think it would be good to ensure the
interface is robust and performant enough to actually replace the current
object store interface (even if we don't actually do that just yet).

I agree that it should be robust and performant, but I don't think it
needs to be as performant in all cases as the current object store
right now.

That sounds like starting from a defeatest position.  Is there a
reason why you think using an external interface could never perform
well enough to be usable in everyday work?

Perhaps in the future we will be able to make it as performant as, or
perhaps even more performant, than the current object store, but in
the current implementation the following issues mean that it will be
less performant

That might be an answer to a different question; I was hoping to
hear that it should be performant enough for everyday work, but
never thought it would perform as well as local disk.

I haven't used network filesystem quite a while, but a repository on
NFS may still usable, and we know our own access pattern bettern
than NFS which cannot anticipate what paths the next operations by
its client happen, so it is not inconceivable that a well designed
external object database interface would let us outperform "repo on
NFS" scenario.