From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
To: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
Cc: Taylor Blau <ttaylorr@github.com>, Sun Chao <16657101987@163.com>,
Sun Chao via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] packfile: freshen the mtime of packfile by configuration
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 15:52:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YO9AeudYPmWRnRNb@nand.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87y2a8zntw.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 09:32:26PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > But if that isn't possible, then I find introducing a new file to
> > redefine the pack's mtime just to accommodate a backup system that
> > doesn't know better to be a poor justification for adding this
> > complexity. Especially since we agree that rsync-ing live Git
> > repositories is a bad idea in the first place ;).
> >
> > If it were me, I would probably stop here and avoid pursuing this
> > further. But an OK middle ground might be core.freshenPackfiles=<bool>
> > to indicate whether or not packs can be freshened, or the objects
> > contained within them should just be rewritten loose.
> >
> > Sun could then set this configuration to "false", implying:
> >
> > - That they would have more random loose objects, leading to some
> > redundant work by their backup system.
> > - But they wouldn't have to resync their huge packfiles.
> >
> > ...and we wouldn't have to introduce any new formats/file types to do
> > it. To me, that seems like a net-positive outcome.
>
> This approach is getting quite close to my core.checkCollisions patch,
> to the point of perhaps being indistinguishable in practice:
> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20181028225023.26427-5-avarab@gmail.com/
Hmm, I'm not sure if I understand. That collision check is only done
during index-pack, and reading builtin/index-pack.c:check_collision(),
it looks like we only do it for large blobs anyway.
> I.e. if you're happy to re-write out duplicate objects then you're going
> to be ignoring the collision check and don't need to do it. It's not the
> same in that you might skip writing objects you know are reachable, and
> with the collisions check off and not-so-thin packs you will/might get
> more redundancy than you asked for.
We may be talking about different things, but if users are concerned
about SHA-1 collisions, then they should still be able to build with
DC_SHA1=YesPlease to catch shattered-style collisions.
Anyway, I think we may be a little in the weeds for what we are trying
to accomplish here. I'm thinking something along the lines of the
following (sans documentation and tests, of course ;)).
--- >8 ---
diff --git a/object-file.c b/object-file.c
index f233b440b2..87c9238365 100644
--- a/object-file.c
+++ b/object-file.c
@@ -1971,9 +1971,22 @@ static int freshen_loose_object(const struct object_id *oid)
return check_and_freshen(oid, 1);
}
+static int can_freshen_packs = -1;
+static int get_can_freshen_packs(void)
+{
+ if (can_freshen_packs < 0) {
+ if (git_config_get_bool("core.freshenpackfiles",
+ &can_freshen_packs))
+ can_freshen_packs = 1;
+ }
+ return can_freshen_packs;
+}
+
static int freshen_packed_object(const struct object_id *oid)
{
struct pack_entry e;
+ if (!get_can_freshen_packs())
+ return 0;
if (!find_pack_entry(the_repository, oid, &e))
return 0;
if (e.p->freshened)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-14 19:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-10 19:01 [PATCH] packfile: enhance the mtime of packfile by idx file Sun Chao via GitGitGadget
2021-07-11 23:44 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-12 16:17 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-14 1:28 ` [PATCH v2] packfile: freshen the mtime of packfile by configuration Sun Chao via GitGitGadget
2021-07-14 1:39 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-14 2:52 ` Taylor Blau
2021-07-14 16:46 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-14 17:04 ` Taylor Blau
2021-07-14 18:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-14 19:11 ` Martin Fick
2021-07-14 19:41 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-14 20:20 ` Martin Fick
2021-07-20 6:32 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-15 8:23 ` Son Luong Ngoc
2021-07-20 6:29 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-14 19:30 ` Taylor Blau
2021-07-14 19:32 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-14 19:52 ` Taylor Blau [this message]
2021-07-14 21:40 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-07-15 16:30 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-15 16:42 ` Taylor Blau
2021-07-15 16:48 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-14 16:11 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-19 19:53 ` [PATCH v3] " Sun Chao via GitGitGadget
2021-07-19 20:51 ` Taylor Blau
2021-07-20 0:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-07-20 15:07 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-20 6:19 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-07-20 15:34 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-20 15:00 ` Sun Chao
2021-07-20 16:53 ` Taylor Blau
2021-08-15 17:08 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] " Sun Chao via GitGitGadget
2021-08-15 17:08 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] packfile: rename `derive_filename()` to `derive_pack_filename()` Sun Chao via GitGitGadget
2021-08-15 17:08 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] packfile: freshen the mtime of packfile by bump file Sun Chao via GitGitGadget
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=YO9AeudYPmWRnRNb@nand.local \
--to=me@ttaylorr.com \
--cc=16657101987@163.com \
--cc=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=ttaylorr@github.com \
/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).