From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 04:04:39 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <68678ded498cd0447f0d7c9884325dc9@brasstown.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Question about fossil Topicbox-Message-UUID: f793c05a-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > I wasn't thinking "I would need a big venti", more "I only need a small > fossil". My train of thought was because the fossil size is used to store > the unarchived files after which they can be gotten from venti that it > might be practical to only have the fossil be big enough to store the > maximal size of files that will change per day(snapshot interval). > > I would struggle to change 16GB a day unless I'm backing up a VM so 64 > seemed like it should accommodate any changes and still leave room for lots > of often used files to be kept there (if fossil thinks like that). why bother optimizing this? fossil is going to be <1% of the disk even if you make it silly huge. - erik