From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: Smart fetch via HTTP? Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:52:55 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20070515201006.GD3653@efreet.light.src> <46a038f90705152225y529c9db3x8615822e876c25a8@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90705161426n3b928086t2d3e68749557f866@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jan Hudec , git@vger.kernel.org To: Martin Langhoff X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 17 02:53:09 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 1HoUEs-0007ik-J2 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 17 May 2007 02:53:06 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756415AbXEQAxA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 20:53:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755753AbXEQAxA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 20:53:00 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46753 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755334AbXEQAw7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 20:52:59 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 May 2007 00:52:57 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO localhost) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 17 May 2007 02:52:57 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+3K+h2HKG3J+ingg0j5Thk9c96hMWDy3jLS1tTna 8WReIz+4w8sotv X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <46a038f90705161426n3b928086t2d3e68749557f866@mail.gmail.com> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Thu, 17 May 2007, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On 5/16/07, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > > Do the indexes have enough info to use them with http ranges? It'd be > > > chunkier than a smart protocol, but it'd still work with dumb servers. > > It would not be really performant, would it? Besides, not all Web servers > > speak HTTP/1.1... > > Performant compared to downloading a huge packfile to get 10% of it? > Sure! It'd probably take a few trips, and you'd end up fetching 20% of > the file, still better than 100%. Don't forget that those 10% probably do not do you the favour to be in large chunks. Chances are that _every_ _single_ wanted object is separate from the others. > > Besides, not all Web servers speak HTTP/1.1... > > Are there any interesting webservers out there that don't? Hand-rolled > purpose-built webservers often don't but those don't serve files, they > serve web apps. When it comes to serving files, any webserver that is > supported (security-wise) these days is HTTP/1.1. > > And for services like SF.net it'd be a safe low-cpu way of serving git > files. 'cause the git protocol is quite expensive server-side (io+cpu) > as we've seen with kernel.org. Being really smart with a cgi is > probably going to be expensive too. It's probably better and faster than relying on a feature which does not exactly help. Ciao, Dscho