Re: Keeping unreachable objects in a separate pack instead of loose?

[Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> But as you might have noticed, there are a bunch of semantic problems 
> with that as well.

I've proposed something (explicitly labelled cruft packs) which is no
worse than before.  The one potential problem is that objects in the
cruft pack might have their lifespan extended by two weeks (or
whatever the expire timeout might be), but Peff has agreed that it's
simple enough to ignore that, since the benefits far outweigh the
potential that some objects in cruft packs will get to live a bit
longer.

The race condition you've pointed out exists today, with the git prune
racing against the git fetch.

					- Ted