From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: git-index-pack really does suck.. Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20070403210319.GH27706@spearce.org> <20070403211709.GJ27706@spearce.org> <56b7f5510704031540i4df918e6g5a82389b6759c50b@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Nicolas Pitre , "Shawn O. Pearce" , Chris Lee , Junio C Hamano , Git Mailing List To: Dana How X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Apr 04 00:53:48 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 1HYrso-0003Fw-LB for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 04 Apr 2007 00:53:47 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2992476AbXDCWxn (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:53:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S2992478AbXDCWxn (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:53:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:47111 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2992476AbXDCWxm (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:53:42 -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 l33MqXPD025837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:52:33 -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 l33MqWhF005619; Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:52:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <56b7f5510704031540i4df918e6g5a82389b6759c50b@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.454 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.119__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.177 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dana How wrote: > > Larger and larger pack files make me nervous. > They are expensive to manipulate, > and >2GB requires a file format change. It sometimes also requires a new filesystem. There are a lot of filesystems that can handle more than 4GB total, but not necessarily in a single file. The only really useful such filesystem is probably FAT, which is still quite useful for things like USB memory sticks. But that is probably already worth supporting. So I think we want to support 64-bit (or at least something like 40+ bit) pack-files, but yes, I think that even if/when we support it, we still want to support the "multiple smaller pack-files" schenario exactly because for some uses it's much *better* to have ten 2GB packfiles rather than one 20GB pack-file. Linus