git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>,
	Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix simple deepening of a repo
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:20:52 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200908241620.52838.johan@herland.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0908240946390.6044@xanadu.home>

On Monday 24 August 2009, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> writes:
> > > If all refs sent by the remote repo during a fetch are reachable
> > > locally, then no further conversation is performed with the
> > > remote. This check is skipped when the --depth argument is
> > > provided to allow the deepening of a shallow clone which
> > > corresponding remote repo has no changed.
> > >
> > > However, some additional filtering was added in commit c29727d5
> > > to remove those refs which are equal on both sides.  If the
> > > remote repo has not changed, then the list of refs to give the
> > > remote process becomes empty and simply attempting to deepen a
> > > shallow repo always fails.
> > >
> > > Let's stop being smart in that case and simply send the whole
> > > list over when that condition is met.  The remote will do the
> > > right thing anyways.
> > >
> > > Test cases for this issue are also provided.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> > > ---
> >
> > Thanks.  The fix looks correct (as usual with patches from you).
> >
> > But it makes me wonder if this logic to filter refs is buying us
> > anything.
> >
> > >  	for (rm = refs; rm; rm = rm->next) {
> > > +		nr_refs++;
> > >  		if (rm->peer_ref &&
> > >  		    !hashcmp(rm->peer_ref->old_sha1, rm->old_sha1))
> > >  			continue;
> >
> > 		ALLOC_GROW(heads, nr_heads + 1, nr_alloc);
> > 		heads[nr_heads++] = rm;
> > 	}
> >
> > What is the point of not asking for the refs that we know are the
> > same?
>
> I could see the advantage if the number of refs is really huge. 
> Wasn't some converted repositories producing a lot of branches and/or
> tags significantly slowing down a fetch operation?  Granted that was
> long ago when that issue got "fixed" so the details are fuzzy to me.

I'm converting several CVS repos to Git with ~50 000 refs, so I'm happy 
with any change that can speed things up for repos with many refs.

Right now, my biggest gripe is that a 'git push --mirror' on such a repo 
can easily take ~10 min. even though the actual pack generation and 
transfer only takes a couple of seconds. It seems like it needs ~10 
minutes to generate the list of changed/added/deleted refs...
Unfortunately I haven't had time to look properly into it, yet...


...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net

  reply	other threads:[~2009-08-24 14:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-08-22  5:52 git fetch --depth=* broken? Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-24  4:04 ` [PATCH] fix simple deepening of a repo Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-24  4:49   ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-24 13:55     ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-24 14:20       ` Johan Herland [this message]
2009-08-24 22:21       ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-24 16:26     ` Daniel Barkalow
2009-08-24 22:30       ` Julian Phillips
2009-08-25  0:18         ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-08-25  2:12           ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-25  5:00             ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-08-25  5:21             ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-25  6:12               ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-25  6:33                 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-25 15:14                   ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-26  2:10                     ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-26  7:08                       ` Johannes Sixt
2009-08-26  8:22                         ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-26  9:03                           ` Junio C Hamano
2009-08-26 17:03                             ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-28 17:30                       ` [RFC PATCH] upload-pack: expand capability advertises additional refs Shawn O. Pearce
2009-08-28 19:07                         ` Junio C Hamano

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=200908241620.52838.johan@herland.net \
    --to=johan@herland.net \
    --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
    --cc=barkalow@iabervon.org \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=nico@cam.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).