From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: pack operation is thrashing my server Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2008 21:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <7vk5dorclv.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <9e4733910809061950g6d9d2cf1g708f8faf0c06108@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910809062043y661d2d54rcb034d4c70296727@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Smirl X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Sep 07 06:52:24 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KcCG1-0008JE-DF for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2008 06:52:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751213AbYIGEvK (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:51:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751208AbYIGEvK (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:51:10 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:51563 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751172AbYIGEvJ (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:51:09 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [140.211.169.55]) by smtp1.linux-foundation.org (8.14.2/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m874oYN6006275 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 6 Sep 2008 21:50:36 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id m874oYjK020347; Sat, 6 Sep 2008 21:50:34 -0700 In-Reply-To: <9e4733910809062043y661d2d54rcb034d4c70296727@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.437 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.4-osdl_revision__1.47__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.63 on 140.211.169.13 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Jon Smirl wrote: > > When I was playing with those giant Mozilla packs speed of zlib wasn't > a big problem. Number one problem was the repack process exceeding 3GB > which forced me to get 64b hardware and 8GB of memory. If you start > swapping in a repack, kill it, it will probably take a month to > finish. .. and you'd make things much much WORSE? > Size and speed are not unrelated. Jon, go away. Go and _look_ at those damn numbers you tried to point me to. Those "better" compression models you pointed at are not only hundreds of times slower than zlib, they take hundreds of times more memory too! Yes, size and speed are definitely not unrelated. And in this situation, when it comes to compression algorithms, the relationship is _very_ clear: - better compression takes more memory and is slower Really. You're trying to argue for something, but you don't seem to realize that you argue _against_ the thing you think you are arguing for. Linus