From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Suggested for PU: revision caching system to significantly speed up packing/walking Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:50:55 -0400 Message-ID: <20090808025055.GA14731@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <4A7AEFA8.5010001@drmicha.warpmail.net> <4A7B95A8.2010000@vilain.net> <7vzlabp7e4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , Nicolas Pitre , Johannes Schindelin , Sam Vilain , Michael J Gruber , "Shawn O. Pearce" , Andreas Ericsson , Christian Couder , "git@vger.kernel.org" To: Nick Edelen X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Aug 08 04:51:18 2009 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 1MZc1d-0004AD-3s for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:51:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932256AbZHHCu5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:50:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757671AbZHHCu5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:50:57 -0400 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:57980 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757569AbZHHCu4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:50:56 -0400 Received: (qmail 23041 invoked by uid 107); 8 Aug 2009 02:53:08 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:53:08 -0400 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:50:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7vzlabp7e4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 03:48:51PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > The cache file for all of the linux repository (as of a few weeks ago) > > is around 42MB, without names. The names would probably add 2 or 3 MB > > on top of that. That's probably about as big as I'd want to get, > > Hmm. .git/objects/ as of today is about 482M here, so we are talking > about roughly 10% overhead? IIRC from previous discussions, kernel.org's main performance problem is I/O, not CPU. Are there any provisions for sharing rev-caches between similar repositories, as we already do for objects? -Peff