From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1A621F453 for ; Thu, 7 Feb 2019 08:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727018AbfBGIhU (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:37:20 -0500 Received: from mail-ed1-f54.google.com ([209.85.208.54]:46501 "EHLO mail-ed1-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726707AbfBGIhU (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Feb 2019 03:37:20 -0500 Received: by mail-ed1-f54.google.com with SMTP id o10so8245244edt.13 for ; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:37:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=B/6r0+SK/cK9uMSsvSXpsH5mI5/WmeGT2tNB8T4vtHM=; b=LD3gqIrPwFVdnT8dFZpUm7ubvo1CBmT4iKhr0Y4g5OoUtDIwX9dwPBD7DMq6NwlHWl pF3ki8R3/pRTELRnl0ok3TLe1J2Pw0l5Fw9SsU5iGHOvzh1aaRDb5u4sHYLS8WnbCxJj U15FYuoELqoMIaI/irvcw980wnTepQj0Sfb/urCtu5Q86d+hcjiTvkA94Wnscj1cgLO3 r1a6EBHIwCcQ4hxqaU2cKBdjlECIYYI1eJZ2yP4KyAaL5D8Og2BsLQz/EGmbhUF9b9nA DFRuVHIRs3OGV+IVSNdlRkfoiMHr5lb4XoOOWv2nCbLyScVpAH7R+vaA5gh1f9/NQ1Wp pHrQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=B/6r0+SK/cK9uMSsvSXpsH5mI5/WmeGT2tNB8T4vtHM=; b=BjpYcttXz2XzCZrjb/FstRslWwZqe59NgI23i5JykJ3pnA5MxTnYJAt0b1V9iX9m3l fdJ/yAZZ3L63OTZENgPPezOlcrFTtebw1/FsXBgrfWUjL7JcIBl+ovCB1/4oAoV7JYR+ Rt+/MQ3JeGN2J4nB0WNv09D2dg4xq7PDMLvHjLd5l0xm7jqBbrsLsaCrbZa5Vyk3gibQ 3gmqiS+JEfavi/JJxK1vEtafOVHvg9u7rHQ3IO6/hHhziVjVbpCuoKvjtywMK0vewo0H NmcPFCGWajguVIE3DYO9r417QwRXcj3A/yijpeFRQNYFl4QEbg1xOPqdgZVU9GukVT4u YLwA== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAua0PIUxGUAjpE1xm4XO6GU2suJMq9o5UaSORC+jvj3EjosLp2IP qo7r++ISiUcodcm5zRLSHTSxU7Tm X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYTcuqEP9cNypVkFDFXpHjDoYuhXoWetzX8XiV+rD9QfrCu6fUHlNVMMYRqbk5B+HjPEyZsig== X-Received: by 2002:a50:c11a:: with SMTP id l26mr11600390edf.233.1549528638436; Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:37:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from evledraar (dhcp-077-251-215-224.chello.nl. [77.251.215.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i24sm6515028edq.0.2019.02.07.00.37.17 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 07 Feb 2019 00:37:17 -0800 (PST) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Victor Porton Cc: git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Output should push to different servers in parallel References: <173ed6e2-7f33-62a0-e1bd-f4663e68490e@narod.ru> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux buster/sid; Emacs 26.1; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: <173ed6e2-7f33-62a0-e1bd-f4663e68490e@narod.ru> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2019 09:37:16 +0100 Message-ID: <878syskn9f.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 06 2019, Victor Porton wrote: > I experienced a slowdown in Git pushing when I push to more than one server. > > I propose: > > Run push to several servers in parallel. > > Not to mix the output, nevertheless serialize the output, that is for > example cache the output of the second server push and start to output > it immediately after the first server push is finished. > > This approach combines the advantages of the current way (I suppose it > is so) to serialize pushes: first push to the first server, then to > the second, etc. and of my idea to push in parallel. > > I think the best way would be use multithreading, but multiprocessing > would be a good quick solution. This seems like a reasonable idea, until such time as someone submits patches to implement this in git you can do this with some invocation of GNU parallel -k, i.e. operate on N remotes in parallel, and use the -k option to buffer up all their output and present it in sequence.