[p4] Reducing the size of Perforce data.

[Raghu Kumar C]

Steve/David,

	The main reason to think of a 'p4 obliterate' is to reduce the
number of tapes used to do the backup. By doing that if I can increase
the performance of the server then well and good. I have done checkpoint
recoveries before to salvage space from db files.

	Talking of backup server I don't have one, we do a differential
backup daily and a complete backup weekly to a tape.

Regards
Raghu


-----Original Message-----
From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com
[mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of David Weintraub
Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 08:54 PM
To: Raghu Kumar C
Cc: perforce-user at perforce.com
Subject: Re: [p4] Reducing the size of Perforce data.

As others have pointed out, there are other ways to hide the branch
information.

* You can "delete" the branches by doing a "p4 delete". This will
remove the branches from the current view of your source depot, but
allows the branches to be present in older revisions.

* You can use the "p4 protect" to hide unused branches. This is very
quick, but can be tedious if you have lots of branches

* You can completely remove old information via "p4 obliterate". This
is a completely permanent solution, and you will never get the
information back. You also won't save any database space unless you
rebuild your database from a checkpoint.

Do you have a backup Perforce server with a backup license, and if
not, why not? The Perforce backup license is free, and a backup server
runs less than $5K which (compared to your Perforce licenses) is dirt
cheap.

Why not try doing a Obliterate on the backup server, then do a
checkpoint and rebuild the database and see how much space it actually
saves and whether or not it is worth it.

On 5/22/07, Raghu Kumar C <RaghuKumar.c at tavant.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>         I have around 80 GB of data including my DB files. We follow
> early branching and there are a lot of branches that were created to
do
> development work. Is it okay if I try to obliterate these branches? If
> not is there any other way I can reduce the size of these branches?
>
> Thank you,
> Raghu
> Any comments or statements made in this email are not necessarily
those of Tavant Technologies. The information transmitted is intended
only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. If you have received this in error, please
contact
> the sender and delete the material from any computer. All e-mails sent
from or to Tavant Technologies. may be subject to our monitoring
procedures.
>
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
>


-- 
--
David Weintraub
qazwart at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
Any comments or statements made in this email are not necessarily those of Tavant Technologies. The information transmitted is intended only for the 
person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received this in error, please contact 
the sender and delete the material from any computer. All e-mails sent from or to Tavant Technologies. may be subject to our monitoring procedures.