From: Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
Cc: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>,
Hallvard B Furuseth <h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Keeping unreachable objects in a separate pack instead of loose?
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:37:02 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120612183702.GD1803@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206121359260.23555@xanadu.home>
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 02:25:47PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Earlier in the thread, I outlined another scheme by which you could
> > repack and avoid the duplicates. It does not require changes to git's
> > object lookup process, because it would involve manually feeding the
> > list of cruft objects to pack-objects (which will pack what you ask it,
> > regardless of whether the objects are in other packs).
>
> That might be hard to achieve good delta compression though, as the main
> key to sort those objects is their path name, and with unreferenced
> objects you might not necessarily have that information. The ability to
> reuse pack data might mitigate this though.
Compared to loose objects, even not-so-great delta compression is
manna from heaven. Remember what originally got me to start this
flag. There was 4.5 megabytes worth of loose objects, that when I
created the object id list and fed the result to git pack-object, the
resulting pack was 244k.
OK, maybe the delta compression wasn't optimal. Compared to the 4.5
megabytes of loose objects --- I'll happily settle for that! :-)
> So the problem is really about 'git gc' creating more data on disk which
> is counter productive for a garbage collecting task. Maybe the trick is
> simply not to delete any of the old pack which content was repacked into
> a single new pack and let them age before deleting them, rather than
> exploding a bunch of loose objects. But then we're back to the same
> issue I wanted to get away from i.e. identifying real cruft packs and
> making them safely deletable.
But the old packs are huge; in my case, a full set of packs was around
16 megabytes. Right now, git gc *increased* my disk usage by 4.5
megabytes. If we don't delete the old backs, then git gc would
increase disk usage by 16 megabytes --- which is far, far worse.
Writing a 244k cruft pack is a soooooo much preferable.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-12 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-10 12:31 Keeping unreachable objects in a separate pack instead of loose? Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-10 23:24 ` Hallvard B Furuseth
2012-06-11 14:44 ` Thomas Rast
2012-06-11 15:31 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 16:08 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 17:04 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-11 17:45 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 17:54 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 18:20 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 18:43 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 17:46 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 17:27 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 18:34 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 20:44 ` Hallvard Breien Furuseth
2012-06-11 21:14 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 21:41 ` Hallvard Breien Furuseth
2012-06-11 21:14 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 21:39 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 22:14 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 22:23 ` Jeff King
2012-06-11 22:28 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-11 22:35 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 0:41 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 17:10 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 17:30 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 17:32 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 17:45 ` Shawn Pearce
2012-06-12 17:50 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 17:57 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 18:43 ` Andreas Schwab
2012-06-12 19:07 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 19:09 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 19:23 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 19:39 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 19:41 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 17:55 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 17:49 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 17:54 ` Jeff King
2012-06-12 18:25 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 18:37 ` Ted Ts'o [this message]
2012-06-12 19:15 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 19:19 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-12 19:35 ` Nicolas Pitre
2012-06-12 19:43 ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-12 19:15 ` Jeff King
2012-06-13 18:17 ` Martin Fick
2012-06-13 21:27 ` Johan Herland
2012-06-11 15:40 ` 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=20120612183702.GD1803@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=trast@student.ethz.ch \
/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).