From: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
david@lang.hm, Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net>,
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
"Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>
Subject: Re: Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 11:28:39 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9e4733910904060828m414dfe7v66b19f7b4c5b670e@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904061042300.6741@xanadu.home>
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, Jon Smirl wrote:
>> >
>> >> First thing an initial clone does is copy all of the pack files from
>> >> the server to the client without even looking at them.
>> >
>> > This is a no go for reasons already stated many times. There are
>> > security implications (those packs might contain stuff that you didn't
>> > intend to be publically accessible) and there might be efficiency
>> > reasons as well (you might have a shared object store with lots of stuff
>> > unrelated to the particular clone).
>>
>> How do you deal with dense history packs? These packs take many hours
>> to make (on a server class machine) and can be half the size of a
>> regular pack. Shouldn't there be a way to copy these packs intact on
>> an initial clone? It's ok if these packs are specially marked as being
>> ok to copy.
>
> [sigh]
>
> Let me explain it all again.
>
> There is basically two ways to create a new pack: the intelligent way,
> and the bruteforce way.
>
> When creating a new pack the intelligent way, what we do is to enumerate
> all the needed object and look them up in the object store. When a
> particular object is found, we create a record for that object and note
> in which pack it is located, at what offset in that pack, how much space
> it occupies in its compressed form within that pack, , and if whether it
> is a delta or not. When that object is indeed a delta (the majority of
> objects usually are) then we also keep a pointer on the record for the
> base object for that delta.
>
> Next, for all objects in delta form which base object is also part of
> the object enumeration and obviously part of the same pack, we simply
> flag those objects as directly reusable without any further processing.
> This means that, when those objects are about to be stored in the new
> pack, their raw data is simply copied straight from the original pack
> using the offset and size noted above. In other words, those objects
> are simply never redeltified nor redeflated at all, and all the work
> that was previously done to find the best delta match is preserved with
> no extra cost.
Does this process cause random reads all over a 2GB pack file? Busy
servers can't keep a 2GB pack in memory.
sendfile() the 2GB pack to client is way more efficient. (assuming the
pack is marked as being ok to send).
>
> Of course, when your repository is tightly packed into a single pack,
> then all enumerated objects fall into the reusable category and
> therefore a copy of the original pack is indeed sent over the wire.
> One exception is with older git clients which don't support the delta
> base offset encoding, in which case the delta reference encoding is
> substituted on the fly with almost no cost (this is btw another reason
> why a dumb copy of existing pack may not work universally either). But
> in the common case, you might see the above as just the same as if git
> did copy the pack file because it really only reads some data from a
> pack and immediately writes that data out.
>
> The bruteforce repacking is different because it simply doesn't concern
> itself with existing deltas at all. It instead start everything from
> scratch and perform the whole delta search all over for all objects.
> This is what takes lots of resources and CPU cycles, and as you may
> guess, is never used for fetch/clone requests.
>
>
> Nicolas
>
--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-06 15:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-04 22:07 Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 0:05 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 0:37 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 3:54 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 4:08 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 7:04 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 19:02 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 19:17 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-05 23:02 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 20:43 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 21:08 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-05 21:28 ` david
2009-04-05 21:36 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-04-06 3:24 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 8:10 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 9:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-04-07 13:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 13:37 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-04-07 14:03 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-07 17:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 14:21 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 17:48 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 18:12 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 18:56 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 20:27 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-08 4:52 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-10 20:38 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-11 1:58 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-11 7:06 ` Mike Hommey
2009-04-14 15:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-14 20:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-14 20:27 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-14 21:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-15 3:09 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2009-04-15 5:53 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-15 5:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-15 11:51 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 1:15 ` Sam Vilain
2009-04-22 9:55 ` Mike Ralphson
2009-04-22 11:24 ` Pieter de Bie
2009-04-22 13:19 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-22 14:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-22 16:40 ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-04-22 17:06 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-23 19:30 ` Christian Couder
2009-04-22 14:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 22:01 ` Sam Vilain
2009-04-22 22:50 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-22 23:07 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 23:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-23 3:16 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-14 20:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-07 20:29 ` Jeff King
2009-04-07 20:35 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-08 11:28 ` [PATCH] process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-10 22:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 0:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 1:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 1:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-11 13:41 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 14:07 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 19:22 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 20:50 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 21:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 23:24 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 19:40 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 19:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-05 22:59 ` Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 23:20 ` david
2009-04-05 23:28 ` Robin Rosenberg
2009-04-06 3:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 5:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-06 13:12 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 13:52 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 14:19 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:37 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 14:48 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-06 15:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 15:28 ` Jon Smirl [this message]
2009-04-06 16:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 11:22 ` Matthieu Moy
2009-04-06 13:29 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:03 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-06 14:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 10:11 ` Martin Langhoff
2009-04-05 19:57 ` Jeff King
2009-04-05 23:38 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 23:42 ` Robin H. Johnson
[not found] ` <0015174c150e49b5740466d7d2c2@google.com>
2009-04-06 0:29 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-06 3:10 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2009-04-06 4:09 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 4:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:20 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-11 17:24 ` Mark Levedahl
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=9e4733910904060828m414dfe7v66b19f7b4c5b670e@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jonsmirl@gmail.com \
--cc=david@lang.hm \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net \
--cc=robbat2@gentoo.org \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
/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).