From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Martin Fick Subject: Re: Git is not scalable with too many refs/* Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 10:38:34 -0600 Organization: CAF Message-ID: <201109261038.34527.mfick@codeaurora.org> References: <4DF6A8B6.9030301@op5.se> <201109260948.25312.mfick@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Julian Phillips To: Sverre Rabbelier X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 26 18:38:44 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 1R8ECa-0002LR-1b for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:38:44 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751967Ab1IZQik (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:38:40 -0400 Received: from wolverine01.qualcomm.com ([199.106.114.254]:21493 "EHLO wolverine01.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751857Ab1IZQij (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 12:38:39 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6480"; a="121626743" Received: from pdmz-css-vrrp.qualcomm.com (HELO mostmsg01.qualcomm.com) ([199.106.114.130]) by wolverine01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 26 Sep 2011 09:38:35 -0700 Received: from mfick-lnx.localnet (pdmz-snip-v218.qualcomm.com [192.168.218.1]) by mostmsg01.qualcomm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8F4B010004BE; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 09:38:35 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.32-28-generic; KDE/4.4.5; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Monday, September 26, 2011 09:56:50 am Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > Heya, > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 17:48, Martin Fick wrote: > > Hmm, I was thinking that too, and I just did a test. > > > > Instead of storing the changes under refs/changes, I > > fetched them under refs/heads/changes and then ran git > > 1.7.6 and it took about 3 mins. Then, I ran the > > 1.7.7.rc0.73 with > > c774aab98ce6c5ef7aaacbef38da0a501eb671d4 reverted and > > it only took 13s! So, if this indeed tests what you > > were suggesting, I think it shows that even in the > > intended case this change slowed things down? > > And if you run 1.7.7 without that commit reverted? Sorry, I probably confused things by mentioning 1.7.6, the bad commit was way before that early 1.5 days... As for 1.7.7, I don't think that exists yet, so did you mean the 1.7.7.rc0.73 version that I mentioned above without the revert? Strangely enough, that ends up being 1.7.7.rc0.72.g4b5ea. That is also slow with refs/heads/changes > 3mins. -Martin -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. which is a member of Code Aurora Forum