From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Hommey Subject: Re: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:50:49 +0200 Organization: glandium.org Message-ID: <20070918095049.GA9388@glandium.org> References: <20070918090926.GA8927@glandium.org> <7v4phswcuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 18 11:51:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IXZkE-0002eT-Bu for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:51:50 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754683AbXIRJvq (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:51:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754304AbXIRJvp (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:51:45 -0400 Received: from vawad.err.no ([85.19.200.177]:43460 "EHLO vawad.err.no" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753505AbXIRJvp (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:51:45 -0400 Received: from aputeaux-153-1-18-194.w82-124.abo.wanadoo.fr ([82.124.60.194] helo=namakemono.glandium.org) by vawad.err.no with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1IXZk7-0001yi-SB; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:51:46 +0200 Received: from mh by namakemono.glandium.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IXZjF-0002S1-4o; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:50:49 +0200 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7v4phswcuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> X-GPG-Fingerprint: A479 A824 265C B2A5 FC54 8D1E DE4B DA2C 54FD 2A58 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-Spam-Status: (score 0.0): Status=No hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none version=3.1.4 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:18:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > > I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be > > significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? > > fsck validates objects are correct and sane. prune only looks > at reachability. Now, the speed difference makes sense, but I wouldn't expect lost-found to actually bother validating objects... Mike