From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again) Date: Sun, 7 May 2006 20:33:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20060508003338.GB17138@thunk.org> References: <7v4q065hq0.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <87mzdx7mh9.wl%cworth@cworth.org> <7v1wv92u7o.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46a038f90605052323o29f8bfadr7426f97d8dfc2319@mail.gmail.com> <7vbqubvdbr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <46a038f90605062308x53995076k7bf45f0aebcae0c6@mail.gmail.com> <20060507075631.GA24423@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon May 08 02:33:57 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FcthC-0002vU-BX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 08 May 2006 02:33:54 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751249AbWEHAdw (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2006 20:33:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751251AbWEHAdv (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2006 20:33:51 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:58333 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751249AbWEHAdt (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 May 2006 20:33:49 -0400 Received: from root (helo=candygram.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtps (tls_cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1Fcth6-0007a0-SX; Sun, 07 May 2006 20:33:49 -0400 Received: from tytso by candygram.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Fctgw-0005Eg-Ia; Sun, 07 May 2006 20:33:38 -0400 To: git@vger.kernel.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060507075631.GA24423@coredump.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 03:56:31AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 06:08:03PM +1200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > > >> And in any case commits and trees are lightweight and compress well... > > >Commit maybe, but is this based on a hard fact? > > No hard facts here :( but I think it's reasonable to assume that the > > trees delta/compress reasonably well, as a given commit will change > > just a few entries in each tree. > > A few hard facts (using Linus' linux-2.6 tree): > - original packsize: 120996 kilobytes > - unpacked: 233338 objects, 1417476 kilobytes > This is an 11.7:1 compression ratio (of course, much of this is > wasted space from the 4k block size in the filesystem) If there are 233338 objects, then the average wasted space due to internal fragmentation is 233338 * 2k, or 466676 kilobytes, or only 36% of the wasted space. Most of the savings is probably coming from the compression and delta packing. - Ted