From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>
To: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:02:19 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090405230219.GB31344@curie-int> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090405191703.GJ23521@spearce.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2851 bytes --]
On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 12:17:03PM -0700, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> Another option is to use rsync:// for initial clones.
> git clone rsync://git.gentoo.org/tree.git
> rsync should be more efficient at dragging 1.6GiB over the network,
> as its only streaming the files. But it may fall over if the server
> has a lot of loose objects; many more small files to create.
I just tried this, and ran into a segfault.
Original command:
# git clone rsync://git.overlays.gentoo.org/vcs-public-gitroot/exp/gentoo-x86.git
It looks at a glance like the linked list has a null value it hits during the
internal while loop, not checking 'list' before using 'list->next'.
gdb> bt
#0 strcmp () at ../sysdeps/x86_64/strcmp.S:30
#1 0x000000000049474c in get_refs_via_rsync (transport=<value optimized out>, for_push=<value optimized out>) at transport.c:123
#2 0x000000000049234c in transport_get_remote_refs (transport=0x725fc9) at transport.c:1045
#3 0x000000000041620a in cmd_clone (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=0x7fff908c8550, prefix=<value optimized out>) at builtin-clone.c:487
#4 0x0000000000404f59 in handle_internal_command (argc=0x2, argv=0x7fff908c8550) at git.c:244
#5 0x0000000000405167 in main (argc=0x2, argv=0x7fff908c8550) at git.c:434
gdb> up
#1 0x000000000049474c in get_refs_via_rsync (transport=<value optimized out>, for_push=<value optimized out>) at transport.c:123
123 (cmp = strcmp(buffer + 41,
gdb> print list
$1 = {nr = 0x0, alloc = 0x0, name = 0x0}
If I go into the repo thereafter and manually run git-fetch again, it does work
fine.
> One way around that would be to use two repositories on the server;
> a historical repository that is fully packed and contains the full
> history, and a bleeding edge repository that users would normally
> work against:
Yup, we've been considering similar. We do have one specific need with that
however: to prevent resource abuse, we would like to DENY the ability to do the
initial clone with git:// then - just so that nobody tries to DoS our servers
by doing a couple of hungry initial clones at once.
> That caching GSoC project may help, but didn't I see earlier in
> this thread that you have >4.8 million objects in your repository?
> Any proposals on that project would still have Git malloc()'ing
> data per object; its ~80 bytes per object needed so that's a data
> segment of 384+ MiB, per concurrent clone client.
384MiB or even 512MiB I can cover. It's the 200+ wallclock minutes of cpu burn
with no download that aren't acceptable.
P.S.
The -v output of the rsync-mode git-fetch is very devoid of output. Can we
maybe pipe the rsync progress back?
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 330 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-05 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-04 22:07 Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 0:05 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 0:37 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 3:54 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 4:08 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 7:04 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 19:02 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 19:17 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-05 23:02 ` Robin H. Johnson [this message]
2009-04-05 20:43 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 21:08 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-05 21:28 ` david
2009-04-05 21:36 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-04-06 3:24 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 8:10 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 9:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-04-07 13:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 13:37 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-04-07 14:03 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-07 17:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 14:21 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 17:48 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 18:12 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 18:56 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 20:27 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-08 4:52 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-10 20:38 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-11 1:58 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-11 7:06 ` Mike Hommey
2009-04-14 15:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-14 20:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-14 20:27 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-14 21:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-15 3:09 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2009-04-15 5:53 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-15 5:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-15 11:51 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 1:15 ` Sam Vilain
2009-04-22 9:55 ` Mike Ralphson
2009-04-22 11:24 ` Pieter de Bie
2009-04-22 13:19 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-22 14:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-22 16:40 ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-04-22 17:06 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-23 19:30 ` Christian Couder
2009-04-22 14:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 22:01 ` Sam Vilain
2009-04-22 22:50 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-22 23:07 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 23:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-23 3:16 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-14 20:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-07 20:29 ` Jeff King
2009-04-07 20:35 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-08 11:28 ` [PATCH] process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-10 22:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 0:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 1:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 1:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-11 13:41 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 14:07 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 19:22 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 20:50 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 21:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 23:24 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 19:40 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 19:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-05 22:59 ` Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 23:20 ` david
2009-04-05 23:28 ` Robin Rosenberg
2009-04-06 3:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 5:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-06 13:12 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 13:52 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 14:19 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:37 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 14:48 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-06 15:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 15:28 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 16:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 11:22 ` Matthieu Moy
2009-04-06 13:29 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:03 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-06 14:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 10:11 ` Martin Langhoff
2009-04-05 19:57 ` Jeff King
2009-04-05 23:38 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 23:42 ` Robin H. Johnson
[not found] ` <0015174c150e49b5740466d7d2c2@google.com>
2009-04-06 0:29 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-06 3:10 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2009-04-06 4:09 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 4:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:20 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-11 17:24 ` Mark Levedahl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090405230219.GB31344@curie-int \
--to=robbat2@gentoo.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).