From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.176.0/21 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] change the unpack limit threshold to a saner value Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:24:39 -0800 Message-ID: <7vejrcy860.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:24:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:08:56 -0500 (EST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by dough.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Gs5C0-0002j5-Lm for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:24:45 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937739AbWLFWYl (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:24:41 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S937740AbWLFWYl (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:24:41 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.241.33]:64019 "EHLO fed1rmmtao06.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937739AbWLFWYk (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:24:40 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061206222440.WVLJ2628.fed1rmmtao06.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:24:40 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id vaQq1V00N1kojtg0000000; Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:24:50 -0500 To: Nicolas Pitre Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Nicolas Pitre writes: > Let's assume the average object size is x. Given n objects, the needed > storage size is n*(x + b), where b is the average wasted block size on > disk. > ... > This is why I think the current default treshold should be 3 instead of > the insane value of 5000. But since it feels a bit odd to go from 5000 > to 3 I setled on 10. I see you are optimizing for disk footprint, and this will result in tons of tiny packs left between "repack -a". I have not benched it yet, but the runtime pack handling code was written assuming we have only a handful of big packs; I suspect this change would affect the performance at runtime in quite a bad way.