From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: [RFD] My thoughts about implementing gitweb output caching Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 12:15:39 +0100 Message-ID: <201101081215.42188.jnareb@gmail.com> References: <201101080042.36156.jnareb@gmail.com> <20110108002643.GD15495@burratino> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jonathan Nieder , git@vger.kernel.org, "J.H." , John 'Warthog9' Hawley To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 08 12:16:02 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PbWmA-0005h8-A5 for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 12:16:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752032Ab1AHLP4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2011 06:15:56 -0500 Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:62098 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751838Ab1AHLPz (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jan 2011 06:15:55 -0500 Received: by wyb28 with SMTP id 28so18155120wyb.19 for ; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:15:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=GB+78MiJpyja5X+ZRiVcAl5g4f9PYKwR+FbtW4KlnrU=; b=VcHzNyjPwNb7hCtFnUJxwA/zxmEioteFM1rTq3GC7qLNg2zJrAHqYv0UL4FUVSlV6h IjZDc7l0KQqOsAvq75P0FR6gSgqsMZAlMHtBCFB4we7yJPnz8IHk/pDue8LYXGDObV3v YSOPakBz8MQHyZttmX3o6U5DIvVHBSW3NwMgs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id; b=pv7iBozkUnwvPMyzfM0uBjzd2utL7kDjY2g04661/1hJQ8Scu1Jfd4y2wtg8LXPiQD D9SyFYzVATBmmMKxP+NY8aK6bPw/ORjw+9O37Cke7OE0v1QKMxCkQ8gOvFUoqd5VIJm/ P+IMSCuLBxXHDCUYmgZybXRZ7hLNZeKwk/+PQ= Received: by 10.216.179.81 with SMTP id g59mr214500wem.35.1294485353600; Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:15:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.13] (abvf4.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.8.203.4]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n1sm12926212weq.7.2011.01.08.03.15.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:15:52 -0800 (PST) User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2011, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > With output caching gitweb can also support 'Range' requests, which > > > means that it would support resumable download. This would mean hat we > > > would be able to resume downloading of snapshot (or in the future > > > bundle)... if we cannot do this now. This would require some more code > > > to be added. > > > > Exciting stuff. > > > > Teaching gitweb to generate bundles sounds like a recipe for high server > > loads, though. I suspect manual (or by cronjob) generation would work > > better, with a possible exception of very frequently cloned and > > infrequently pushed-to repos like linus's linux-2.6. > > Even for Linus' linux repo, it is not a good idea to auto create bundle, > except maybe once every major release which is every 3 months or so. I > really don't think this is a good idea to put this in the realm of > gitweb caching. You are right, making gitweb aware of bundles (if they are put in some specified place, e.g. .git/objects/pack or .git/objects/bundle) is I guess a better idea than allowing for gitweb to generate bundles, perhaps only if caching is enabled, and perhaps with very long expiration time. Of course the standard way should be also the standard place for git clients to find bundles in proposed extension to git-clone. -- Jakub Narebski Poland