From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bdowning@lavos.net (Brian Downing) Subject: Re: Preferring shallower deltas on repack Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:24:03 -0500 Message-ID: <20070709192403.GM4087@lavos.net> References: <20070709044326.GH4087@lavos.net> <7v1wfixhvk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7vir8tv8dr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070709185353.GL4087@lavos.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jul 09 21:24:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I7yqJ-0008AZ-Lo for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 09 Jul 2007 21:24:19 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754838AbXGITYP (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:24:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754368AbXGITYP (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:24:15 -0400 Received: from gateway.insightbb.com ([74.128.0.19]:38294 "EHLO asav02.insightbb.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754210AbXGITYP (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:24:15 -0400 Received: from 74-134-246-243.dhcp.insightbb.com (HELO mail.lavos.net) ([74.134.246.243]) by asav02.insightbb.com with ESMTP; 09 Jul 2007 15:24:13 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnA9ADwnkkZKhvbzR2dsb2JhbACBSoVdiAMBAT8B Received: by mail.lavos.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EE92B309F31; Mon, 9 Jul 2007 14:24:03 -0500 (CDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 03:13:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Tuning for such an extreme without impacting normal cases is rather > hard. > > My patch was meant to be used on top of yours. Is that what you tested? > > Also I'd suggest you do not use a max depth of 1000. It is simply > insane and might possibly make the existing logic less effective. Even > for runtime pack access you want it to be reasonably short, say 100 > maximum, or even the current default of 50. Any improvements you might > come with (like automatic depth determined on replay cost) should be > compared with that default which is known to work well already. No, I didn't try it on top of mine; sorry. I'll try that out. I realize a depth of 1000 is nuts, I'm just using it to expose any suboptimal delta selection for the nasty versions.lisp-expr case, since I know that with a window size of 100 it should be easy to keep it from growing too deep. -bcd