From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Figured out how to get Mozilla into git Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:49:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <9e4733910606081917l11354e49q25f0c4aea40618ea@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90606082006t5c6a5623q4b9cf7b036dad1e5@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910606082028k37f6d915m26009e0d5011808b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jakub Narebski , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Jun 09 19:49:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fol7B-0004AS-LO for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:49:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030276AbWFIRtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:49:42 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030289AbWFIRtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:49:42 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:34179 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030276AbWFIRtm (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 13:49:42 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k59HnTgt021203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:49:29 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k59HnStD023169; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 10:49:28 -0700 To: Nicolas Pitre In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.75__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.135 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > Maybe that single pack would instead be under the 512MB limit? I'd be > curious to know. Possible, but not likely, and with "git repack -a -d" running out of memory, we clearly already have a problem in checking that. That is most likely git-rev-list, though. Which is why I'd like to just rsync the repo, and run git-rev-list on it, and see what else I can shave off ;) > > So we're starting to see archives where single packs are problematic for > > a 32-bit architecture. > > Depending on the operation, the single pack might actually be better, Absolutely. Which is why I said we probably need to do a LRU on pack fragments rather than full packs when we do the pack memory mapping. Linus