[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Jan 2014 23:27:22 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii writes:
> > So I guess we will need to repack the repository on savannah as a
> > prerequisite for switching, and then make sure it is repacked
> > regularly afterwards.
>
> I think what should be done is to increase the default configuration
> value of pack.window for the git repos on savannah. That should help
> keeping the packs better packed in the long run.
All of the repositories are repacked monthly on the 4th. As you can
see it is a heavy operation and therefore not run every day. But this
thread seems to have exposed a deficiency in the current repacking.
Currently the script does:
git --git-dir=$dir gc -q
Obvious from the discussion here that is not sufficient. However:
Angelo Graziosi wrote:
> $ git gc --aggressive
> Counting objects: 735546, done.
> Delta compression using up to 2 threads.
> Compressing objects: 100% (734446/734446), done.
> Writing objects: 100% (735546/735546), done.
> Total 735546 (delta 589814), reused 143177 (delta 0)
> Checking connectivity: 735546, done.
>
> which took almost 3 hours to be completed.
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> And now I understand why git ran out of memory on Windows XP: the
> memory footprint of git-pack-objects goes up to 3GB, whereas Windows
> XP has only 3GB address space for all the applications.
Three hours and 3G of memory for this one repack! I worry that
turning --agressive on globally will cause the server to fall over.
Also apparently careful tuning of threads is needed. However the disk
and network savings look significant.
I have a couple of questions if someone already has the clone
available for a test. Does a clone from the agressively repacked to
327M repository remain similarly compacted when cloned again from it?
If an agressively repacked repository is again repacked but this time
without the --agressive option does the size stay around 327M or does
it get expanded on the subsequent pass? (Wondering if we can
periodically run 'git gc --agressive' on the larger git repositories
at a niced background task priority but not too often and still
achieve a good benefit for the time between agressive repacks.)
Bob
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, (continued)
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Angelo Graziosi, 2014/01/07
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/08
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/08
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/08
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Angelo Graziosi, 2014/01/08
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/08
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/09
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval,
Bob Proulx <=
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/15
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Achim Gratz, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12