Subject: Re: Index/hash order

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 22:21:02 +0200

* Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > > I think abusing the immutable bit quickly will decend into the same 
> > > rathole which makes u-w often useless.  u-w will actually be preserved 
> > > by more tools -- simply because they know about it -- than +i.
> > 
> > well, the 'owned by another user' solution is valid though, and doesnt 
> > have this particular problem. (We've got a secure multiuser OS, so can 
> > as well use it to protect the DB against corruption.)
> 
> but ... this variant doesnt have any 'wow' feeling to it either, and 
> it clearly brings in a number of other limitations. I might as well 
> shut up until i can suggest something obviously superior :)

i think the killer argument is compression. A 2 GB compressed repository 
will be a hard sell already, 4 GB is pretty much out of question. And 
once we accept that we have to have _some_ form of compression, it's 
Linus' scheme that wins.

	Ingo