From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <68678ded498cd0447f0d7c9884325dc9@brasstown.quanstro.net>
References: <CAGMcHPqOp2ovwZK93DWMKyUkZpPJTSZwA4dZNWsYMOxyz8MUeQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<aab5a656d5a98aef5c26874103c4205d@quintile.net>
	<CAGMcHPqw3zjqRLofWbZE2eA1wsfLZ4=DDWWtYFm3SHK8N1y+Lw@mail.gmail.com>
	<68678ded498cd0447f0d7c9884325dc9@brasstown.quanstro.net>
Date: Mon,  9 Jun 2014 21:25:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGMcHPoz2CusifFxCdupdtRY2Rmfom1tcR+Q1yXsw-jBGrYpEA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Riddler <riddler876@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] Question about fossil
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f8e703a4-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> why bother optimizing this?  fossil is going to be <1% of the disk even
> if you make it silly huge.

64GB was just a number that seemed like it should accommodate pretty
much anything I could need.
As Steve points out fossil won't do any caching of often used files so
I'll probably cut it in half to 32GB see how it goes.