fs-improvements.txt [plain text]
Last updated: $Date: 2001/07/02 21:46:52 $
Three things that need to happen in the filesystem:
a) Switch to a sane node key system (issue #654).
b) We need to operate on file contents without holding the entire
contents in RAM. Berkeley DB gives us tools to operate on
regions within a value, we just need to use them.
c) We need to do reverse-delta storage in the filesystem (with
d) Record (potentially) multiple parents per change.
e) Implement atomic renames.
Some thoughts on them:
a) Switch to a sane node key system (issue #654)
For more background, read the archived dev list thread with subject
"Maintaining NodeID sanity":
Here's the plan, mostly by Bill Tutt and Branko, with assists from
Karl and Mike:
- This is described in terms of a BDB implementation. Translate to
RDB-speak in your head as necessary :-).
- This proposal supports one copy (a.k.a. branch) operation. You
can call it anything you want: "copy", "branch", "split",
"pumpkin", whatever. We're calling it "copy" :-). It is the SCM
First, a node's key consists of three parts:
The "txnID" is really just a unique identifier, but we happened to
inherit it from the fs txn, and we needed a name for that portion,
so... :-) Also, the copyID could theoretically live in the node's
value instead of in its key, but it feels right to put it in the
key. (How's that for a powerful argument?) For nodes that are not
copies, the copyID is just "0" or some other special value.
There are no more mutability flags -- mutability is determined by
examining whether the node key's txnID matches the txn in question.
Therefore, there is no stabilization walk at commit time.
When we commit a change to a node, the nodeID and copyID stay the
same, only the txnID changes (actually there is a circumstance where
the copyID can change, but more on that later). The new txnID is not
necessarily greater than the old one -- sometimes txns get committed
out of order! -- but anyway it's different from the old txnID, and the
same new txnID is used for all other changes in that commit.
[Greg and Karl disagree on whether to use integer types or `char *'
for the parsed representation of IDs. See the dev list thread
that starts here for the details of this:
After a commit, the txn record in the transactions table does not go
away; instead, it is updated so it now maps the txnID to the new
revision. This allows us to determine the revision a node was
committed in, in constant time, given the node's key.
Each new version of a node stores the node's predecessor (and does not
store copyform history). When node "5.0.fzb" is committed as a
successor to "5.0.qnr", the new node's value stores a reference to
What about copies?
As in the current fs, copies are shallow. The top of the copied tree
gets a new node, but the nodes below it are shared with the copy
source. The new node key keeps the same nodeID, but gets a new txnID,
and gets the next unique copyID (replacing the current copyID, if
In the example below, we copy `A' to `Y'. Node keys for `A', `Y', and
`bar' are given in parentheses:
BEFORE THE COPY AFTER THE COPY
/ | / | \
/ | / | \
/ | / | \
A(3.0.m) B A(3.0.m) B Y(3.jfb.p)
/ \ | / \ | / \
foo bar qux foo bar qux foo bar
(5.0.abc) (5.0.abc) (5.0.abc)
Let's flesh out the example with some commits under A and Y. To save
space, the colons represent time flow, not directory hierarchy --
imagine they're the Z axis coming out of the screen or something :-).
/ | \
/ | \
/ | \
A(3.0.m) B Y(3.jfb.p)
/ \ | / \
foo bar qux foo bar
Let's see how easy it is to answer various questions in this system:
Obviously, is_related() is simple -- just check that the nodeID
portion is the same. You may not know if the relationship is cousins
vs ancestor/descendant, but you know whether or not they're related.
Asking is_predecessor(A,B) is also easy. Just fetch the predecessor
pointer from B and see if it's A.
Finding out what revisions a node changed in is proportional to the
number of changes the node has undergone: start at the node, walk back
through its predecessors, and for each txnID, look up the revision
number via the transactions table (as described earlier).
During this walk, you can always tell when you encounter a node that
results from a copy, because the copyID portion will either change or
disappear entirely. When this happens, you know one of two things is
true: either the previous node in the walk was the top of a copied
tree, or *this* node (the one with the different copyID) was one of
the unchanged nodes down inside a copied tree.
One might think "Oh, we'll distinguish between these cases by walking
up the parents of the node, and seeing if we eventually encounter the
old copyID in one of the parents. That would tell us that we're in
the second case. If we never encounter it, that tells us we're in the
Not so fast, Spidey. We don't have parent pointers -- this is a
predecessor walk by node keys; we can't just walk up the parent path
like that. Fortunately, copyIDs are generated from a new `copies'
table, which maps unique copyIDs onto (REV COPY_DST_PATH
COPY_DST_NODEKEY). We look up the rev/path for the old copyID,
convert it to a node key, and compare it to the node key we're
currently on. Voilà! Actually, we're not sure we'll store all of
those in the copies table, it may boil down to just the DST_NODEKEY or
just the other two, we'll see.
Writing those predecessor walk loops well is left as an exercise for
the reader (umm, more likely for the writers, heh), but you can see
that the necessary questions can be answered efficiently.
Note that, like txnIDs, copyIDs are just unique numbers. They may be
increasing monotonically in the `copies' table, but (due to the fact
that txn A may be started before txn B yet be committed afterwards)
it's quite possible that a higher copyID will become visible in the
revision history before a lower one.
The one thing we can know is that a lower copyID can never be a
branchwise descendent of a lower copyID, since the lower one must have
been committed before any of its descendants txns were started, of
course. I'm not sure this minimal inference will ever be useful, but
anyway it's all we've got. Anyway, right now, we only ever need ask
if two copyIDs are equal -- we don't order them.
Okay, now what if A already had copied trees underneath it when we
copied it to Y? Suppose `bar' is down in one of those subdirectories?
Then when we're committing on /Y/.../bar, we watch for copyIDs as we
walk down from root, like usual, and if we're in a copy underneath a
copy, we bubble down a _new_ copyID, distinct from both Y's and B's,
starting from that point. Justification: a branch of a branch is
still a branch, so it gets its own copyID.
At this point, I'm going to hand-wave on describing the
copy-under-copy behavior any further. I think the above is enough to
see that there are no insurmountable problems here, and that the
filesystem will now have node keys that [lazily] reflect actual
A few more notes:
The is_ancestor(X,Y) question is really only asked during merge(),
that is, during commits. If entry "somedir/blah" has NodeID Y in the
txn being committed, and NodeID X in head tree being merged into that
txn, then we need to make sure X is an ancestor of Y, so that when the
commit replaces X with Y, we know we're not losing any history.
Therefore, we think we can get away with storing the ancestors in a
distributed fashion, as a chain: each node knows its immediate
predecessor (or "precessors", in the future), and you walk back until
you have your answer. In real life, we won't usually be walking back
too far, and the search can be further bounded by the revision range
implied by the two nodes. If profiling proves these walks to be a
bottleneck, we can start caching the results of such walks in a new
table whose keys are node keys, and values are _full_ ancestor lists.
b) Operate on portions of files efficiently.
[still pondering this section]
We should take advantage of Berkeley DB's partial record stuff, all
the way up to the top of the svn fs interfaces.
- dag_node_t gets two new fields: contents_offset and contents_len.
They apply to the node's cache of the contents, not the header or
- svn_fs__get_node_rev_contents() takes offset and len arguments,
fetches only that data. The dag_node_t will remember the offset
- svn_fs__put_node_rev_contents() takes offset and len args as
- change set_node_revision() accordingly.
- ... todo thinking here ...
So now, whenever you read or write a node revision, you are operating
on a range. There will be some way to say "I mean the whole thing",
of course, so it won't be necessary to know the size in advance.
Thought: possibly we should stop storing data in the dag_node_t
itself, and just return the data in a void pointer passed to
svn_fs__get_node_rev_contents(). Still pondering.
c) Reverse-delta storage.
The naive way to recover an old text is:
if (is_fulltext (N))
else if (is_shared (N))
return retrieve_node_rev (get_sharee (N));
else if (is_svndiff (N))
return svnpatch (get_svndiff (N), retrieve_node_rev (get_base (N)))
(Loose pseudo-code, obviously, and the recursion could be a loop, but
you get the idea.)
The trouble with this is that it constructs and patches each
intermediate revision. That'll probably be i/o bound, and anyway much
of the intermediate material may not end up in the final target, in
which case reconstructing it was a waste of time.
What we really want is a way to compose a bunch of svndiffs, and then
apply that composition to the current head, to give us the older
revision in one step (well, one application anyway). Both the
composition and the final application need to happen in a streamy or
windowed fashion -- we shouldn't have to hold the entire diff in
memory, nor the entire source, nor the target.
Here's a way to do this:
An svndiff is a series of instructions that are followed to
reconstruct the target. There are three possible instructions:
a) Insert X bytes of new text into the TARGET, and I'm giving you
those bytes right here.
b) Copy N bytes, starting from offset F in the SOURCE, into the
c) Copy N bytes, starting from offset F in the TARGET, into the
(Note that (c) can actually run past the current end of the target, as
long by the time you get there, the target is longer.)
To compose two svndiffs...
...and I hate to tantalize you, but I'm late and have to run now,
so I'll try to finish this tomorrow... crimminy... The quick
summary is, we build a new svndiff (the composition of all the
intermediates), and as it gets too large, we windowify as we go
and put each window temporarily in the database; this makes the
composition as a whole less efficient, but means that at any
given time we don't have to have the whole thing in memory. The
arithmetic for offset-adjustment is fairly straightforward even
when one has to offload windows, I believe. It's nice that the
source is already in the db and we get offset+length style
operations from Berkeley naturally anyway. Branko or anyone,
feel free to continue this recipe and see if you can take it
somewhere before I get in tomorrow morning... -kff
Notes from JimB about optimizing the in-repository delta generation
to make deltas that can be composed more quickly:
I talked about this with Karl on the phone, and gave pretty bad
explanations of my thinking; I'll try to do better today. This will
also provide some background for other readers.
I'm told that RCS reconstructs older file revisions by walking the
list of diffs, ignoring the actual text, and simply recording the line
numbers and sizes of the substitutions. Then, it can run over that
data and do arithmetic to construct a single `composed' diff against
the youngest revision would reconstructs the older revision. Then,
you apply that composed diff to get the revision you wanted.
For example, if your fulltext is:
rev 3: abcdefghijklmnopqrst
and your deltas are:
rev 2: replace 3--6 with "howdy" (yielding abchowdyghijklmnopqrst)
rev 1: replace 6--8 with " are you" (yielding abchow are youghijklmnopqrst)
then the RCS algorithm would gather this info:
rev 2: replace 3--6 with 5 chars (call them X)
rev 1: replace 6--8 with 8 chars (call them Y)
Now, without looking at any of the text, it can compose the two deltas
to get the following delta, yielding rev 1:
replace 3--6 with range 0--3 from X
replace 6--6 with range 0--8 from Y (i.e. insert Y at 6)
If we then apply this `composed' delta to the original text, we get:
abchow are youghijklmnopqrst
The point of all this is that you don't need to mess around with
actual text until the very end. Until that point, the amount of work
depends on the amount of change, not on the amount of text involved.
And when you do get around to actually assembling text, the amount of
work depends on the size of the output file --- because you're only
touching each piece of text once --- and only weakly on the amount of
Our current svndiff format frustrates this somewhat by compressing the
new text, as well as pulling in pieces of the original. The
compression process produces a lot of delta ops that deal with small
pieces of text. (Or at least, I expect it does...) So even if the
change is something simple --- replacing a single block of text in the
middle of the file, say --- you end up with an svndiff with a lot of
ops, mostly concerned with building the replacement text from pieces
of itself. This is great, except that having lots of small ops
increases the amount of work the delta composition phase needs to do.
In fact, if the ops usually deal with really small pieces of text ---
a few dozen bytes or so --- I expect it'd be faster to just throw the
actual text around. Memcpy is pretty optimized on real systems; you
could copy a lot of bytes in the time it would take to do funky
intersections and adjustments on a list of ops talking about those
bytes, so those ops had better refer to large blocks of bytes.
I'm not sure what to do with that. It almost seems like we want the
text delta computation algorithm to optimize deltas for network
transmission and deltas for storage differently.
Notes from Brane: Delta composition
Despite JimB's concerns, it turns out that delta composition is
straight-forward. The basic idea is that combining two deltas is
equivalent to applying the second delta to a representation of the
first delta's result. Bear with me while I shamelessly abuse what
little I remember about linear algebra.
Given two deltas, A and B, and the source stream S, we want to
construct a composed delta, AB, that converts S to the target stream
T. Let's borrow notation from linear algebra and write this
transformation like this:
T = AB(S)
Abusing algebra some more, I'll assume that a delta behaves like any
other linear transformatsion; therefore,
AB(S) = B(A(S))
and since I'm not about to develop any rigorous proofs here, I'll
just say that it follows from the above that
T = B(S'), where S' = A(S)
A small note here: Every delta is actually an n-tuple of delta
opserations, represented by what I'll call the delta operators [n]
(for new data), [s] (for source copies) and [t] (for target
copies). [s] and [t] create bits of the target stream by operating on
contiguous parts of the source and (existing) target stream,
respectively; while [n] does the same by operating on raw data.
Now, what we actually want to do is derive some form of AB (which, by
the way, does not have a unique representation, sice we're not trying
to find the optimal ("normalized") transform) that doesn't in any way
rely on the value of S'. We do that by building a representation of S'
that relies only on S, and any new data introduced by the [n]
operators in A. That's possible because any [t] ops in A merely copy
parts of S' that have been previously defined by [s] and [n]
ops. Transforming A by (recursively) replacing all [t] ops with the
equivalent [s] and [n] ops gives us exactly such a representation,
which I'll call A'. [*]
Building AB from B and A' is trivial: traversing the list of delta ops
in B, copy all [n] and [t] ops into the result; for [s] ops, copy the
range of ops from A' that define the appropriate range in S'. For some
of the copies, the first or last op from the range in A' will have to
be split, and the first op in the copy range can sometimes be merged
with the previous op in AB.
Of course, stopping here could give a very sub-optimal AB, because it
could contain many duplicate copies of the same op ranges from A'. We
fix this by doing exactly the opposite transformation than A->A': by
transforming [s] ops from B into [t] ops. We do this by recording the
source and target of each copy from A' to AB and, whenever the [s]
from B describes a range in T that was already defined, converting
that into a [t] instead [**]. Unlike the A->A' transform, we can't remove
all copies from A' to AB (we can only do that when AB doesn't refer to
S at all), but we can significantly reduce the number of such copies.
The resulting AB will usually not be the optimal delta from S to T,
because we will never actually look at S while constructing AB.
Summarizing the above, we get the following delta composition
;; X is the set of byte ranges in T defined by copies from S'
;; Y is the current offset in T, defined by the ops in AB
foreach OP in B:
if (OP = [t]) or (OP = [n]):
copy OP to AB
R = (set of ops from A that define S'[OP.offset, OP.length])
[**] using X, find the optimal set O of [t] ops to replace part of R
foreach OP' in R:
if OP' is in (R - O):
if (OP' = [t]):
[*] replace OP' with equivalent [s] and [n] ops
copy OP' to AB
[**] copy OP's equivalent in O to AB
insert S'[OP.offset, OP.length]->[Y, OP.length] into X
This algorithm ignores details such as op splitting and merging,
ensuring every op from O gets copied exactly once, helper indexes,
etc..., but those are implementation details.
Notes from Brane: Delta storage
O.K., now that delta composition is out of the way, let's talk a bit
about storing and retrieving deltified text from the filesystem. I'll
just jot down a few thoughts about how this could be done, assuming
one of two possible models of storage management in the filesystem:
a) all data store and retrieve operations are synchronous; or,
b) deltification can run in the background.
1) Storing new data
New data arrives either as fulltext (from add) or as a delta from an
existing version (copy, modify).
a) if the new data is a delta, convert it to fulltext (possibly
combining several existing deltas in the process). Store the
fulltext in the tip, and replace the previous tip (which, by
induction, contains fulltext) with a delta from the current tip.
b) store the fulltext or delta in the tip and mark it for async
modification. Do a) in the background.
2) Retrieving old data
a) If the data is a delta, follow the delte references (combining
the deltas) until a fulltext is found; apply the combined delta
to get the required fulltext.
If the combined delta reduces to a no-op (the two fulltexts are
the same), store the fulltext in the younger of the two nodes and
replace the older node's data with a "same" note.
b) Same as para 1 of a), then mark the node for async
modification. In the background, find the diff between the two
fulltexts. If they're equal, do para 2 of a). Otherwise, if the
diff is smaller than the current diff in the node, replace the
current representation. ("Smaller" could be construed as "more
optimal" -- it would make sense to take into account the number
of delta combinations that could be skipped by replacing the
current representation when comparing sizes.)
d) Multiple parents per change
This is necessary for -- at least -- accurrate Merge Tracking, to
allow for accurate calculation of change set graph. Use cases
1) Avoiding repeated merges when performing cyclic merging
(e.g branch A -> B -> A).
2) Sussing explicit merge info when a change in merge info occurs
during a copy operation (e.g. to avoid paying attention to implied
merge info from the copy source).
Mercurial (hg) does this.
e) Atomic renames
This may just be a means to an end? Mercurial (hg) gets by without
this, but this may be due to its distributed repository implementation.
It seems we can handle a lot of the desired use cases (see
notes/tree-conflicts.txt) without true renames.
Exploratory work has been started on the fs-atomic-renames branch.