From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin Langhoff" Subject: Re: Smart fetch via HTTP? Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:26:44 +1200 Message-ID: <46a038f90705161426n3b928086t2d3e68749557f866@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070515201006.GD3653@efreet.light.src> <46a038f90705152225y529c9db3x8615822e876c25a8@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Jan Hudec" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Johannes Schindelin" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 16 23:26:52 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HoR1H-00079i-UP for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 16 May 2007 23:26:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754783AbXEPV0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 17:26:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757979AbXEPV0q (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 17:26:46 -0400 Received: from ag-out-0708.google.com ([72.14.246.250]:35415 "EHLO ag-out-0708.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754783AbXEPV0p (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 17:26:45 -0400 Received: by ag-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id 23so386458agd for ; Wed, 16 May 2007 14:26:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=g4ciSOVYMeZ84BjH3jzZU4wPGkZAYOWeix4nwBILCskCLg7drNNjXT7lpxiDTjV1OjztMCa4Hjdo0UDoYFKyVXb29ksy81NXcDEn3ugvbrRFmsbACQ8xX8pv8aWjmIFJxpi2ArRUpmGcyJvho6cYGC+xNpOQj7bsAftApZYDl2o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ho8GVGAr2gx4siT57nvSEB+zdlTTkbhl3Y9iz7uPr13Gs6ASJjYHJxyM6x08hgd07rmao2g1LHVK5/vN2O6Qhy4vZ0vJm/wY2BqIn71TtqAfJ6Q57pO0kBWZC+TNrj5tTxMDG3UaqOewLa8g0/oClqWlCWZXlgpRjZxLYILkE24= Received: by 10.90.75.10 with SMTP id x10mr8889729aga.1179350804659; Wed, 16 May 2007 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.53.18 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2007 14:26:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 5/16/07, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > Do the indexes have enough info to use them with http ranges? It'd be > > chunkier than a smart protocol, but it'd still work with dumb servers. > It would not be really performant, would it? Besides, not all Web servers > speak HTTP/1.1... Performant compared to downloading a huge packfile to get 10% of it? Sure! It'd probably take a few trips, and you'd end up fetching 20% of the file, still better than 100%. > Besides, not all Web servers speak HTTP/1.1... Are there any interesting webservers out there that don't? Hand-rolled purpose-built webservers often don't but those don't serve files, they serve web apps. When it comes to serving files, any webserver that is supported (security-wise) these days is HTTP/1.1. And for services like SF.net it'd be a safe low-cpu way of serving git files. 'cause the git protocol is quite expensive server-side (io+cpu) as we've seen with kernel.org. Being really smart with a cgi is probably going to be expensive too. cheers, m