From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Errors cloning large repo Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:54:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <645002.46177.qm@web52608.mail.yahoo.com> <20070310030718.GA2927@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Anton Tropashko , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Mar 10 06:54:37 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 1HPuXM-0002Ls-8b for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 10 Mar 2007 06:54:36 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993177AbXCJFyV (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2993179AbXCJFyV (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:21 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:33495 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993177AbXCJFyV (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:54:21 -0500 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 l2A5sIo4030833 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:54:18 -0800 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 l2A5sH6I012868; Fri, 9 Mar 2007 21:54:17 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20070310030718.GA2927@spearce.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.49 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.119__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.176 $ 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 Mar 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > I'm shocked you were able to repack an 8.5 GiB repository. Side note - it would be nice to hear just how big the repository *really* is. For example, if "du -sh" says 8.5GB, it doesn't necessarily mean that there really is 8.5GB of data there. With a normal 4kB blocksize filesystem, and ~150.000 filesystem objects, you'd have an average of 300MB of just padding (roughly 2kB per file). Depending on the file statistics, it could be even more. And if it's compressible, it's entirely possible that even without much delta compression, it could fit in a pack-file smaller than 4GB. At which point a 32-bit index file should work fine, just not with a 32-bit off_t. So this really could be a situation where just small tweaks makes it work out for now. We'll need the full 64-bit index eventually for sure, but.. Linus