3 ms·
I'd be very interested to hear what Google's done to their perforce server, if anything. I used to do vendor support for a company that does version control fo
by ian-g 6y ago
I'd be very interested to hear what Google's done to their perforce server, if anything.
I used to do vendor support for a company that does version control for chip design. Basically Perforce + some metadata and applications that automate away a bunch of the administrative grunt work.
Some of our larger customers had quite a few layers of abstraction to try and speed it up (to varying degrees of success). But I don't know how Google's scale would compare to a company that would routinely have check-ins they claimed to be hundreds of GB. Or another that checked in their giant PDKs to send them to each of their sites globally
- GauntletWizard 6y agoGoogle has completely replaced it, in stages, with a whitebox implementation that's by now almost a complete protocol rewrite. You can read about Piper here[1] [1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stores-billions-of-lines-of-code-in-a-single-repository/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/7/204032-why-google-stor...
- ian-g 6y agoI've heard about that! Was more thinking about what they did while there was still a Perforce server on the backend
- GauntletWizard 6y agoThat I can speak (a little) to: They gave it a gigantic RAM-Backed SAN and the best hardware money could buy. Nothing particularly interesting, but there were several perforce servers with 512G of RAM attached to several SANS with terrabytes of RAM storage (In 2012ish when it was replaced). It was only ever explained to me in terms of SWE-Hours, but my understanding is that the hardware budget was enough to fund the several software engineering teams that replaced it, and the licensing was more than the hardware.