From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <de34d390e49a99878e1cf05ee56ea7af@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:16:23 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <4999538E.7070705@proweb.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Regarding venti block size
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a186811a-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> The larger the blocksize the less likely you are of coalescing any (or
> that's what my intuition says). Sure, there's a tradeoff but the
> research has been done already and < 64k blocks looks to have been found
> appropriate.

what's the goal?  the absolute smallest repository
or access speed?  sharing means seeks.  seeks are
deathly slow if you're using disks.

there was a time when there was a compelling
argument for reducing the number of i/o operations
for performance by increasing the block size.
i'm not sure that argument is as strong as it once
was.

- erik