From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: git gc --aggressive led to about 40 times slower "git log --raw" Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:20:28 +0100 Message-ID: <87fvnbhdn7.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87r470ssuc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87ioscsoow.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140218155842.GA7855@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , Christian Jaeger , Git Mailing List To: Duy Nguyen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Feb 22 09:49:45 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WH8HI-0003Yw-JN for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 09:49:44 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751866AbaBVItk (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:49:40 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:40777 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751484AbaBVItj (ORCPT ); Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:49:39 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:39818 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WH8HD-0003o3-8T; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 03:49:39 -0500 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BB956E04F5; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:20:28 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: (Duy Nguyen's message of "Sat, 22 Feb 2014 07:36:06 +0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Duy Nguyen writes: > OK with git://git.savannah.gnu.org/emacs.git we have > > - a 209MB pack with --aggressive > - 1.3GB with --depth=50 > - 1.3GB with --window=4000 --depth=32 > - 1.3GB with --depth=20 > - 821MB with --depth=250 for commits --before=2.years.ago, --depth=50 > for the rest > > So I don't think we should go with your following patch because the > size explosion is just too much no matter how faster it could be. An > immediate action could be just make --depth=250 configurable and let > people deal with it. A better option is something like "3 repack > steps" you described where we pack deep depth first, mark .keep, pack > shallower depth and combine them all into one. > > I'm not really happy with --depth=250 producing 209MB while > --depth=250 --before=2.year.ago a 800MB pack. It looks wrong (or maybe > I did something wrong) That does look strange: Emacs has a history of more than 30 years. But the Git mirror is quite younger. Maybe one needs to make sure to use the author date rather than the commit date here? -- David Kastrup