From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 883B9C433B4 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E19F611EE for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 20:40:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229878AbhDGUkf (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:35 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:58784 "EHLO pb-smtp1.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229780AbhDGUk2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:28 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4668C254C; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=SWc1xDhWLAJguOhiCvNO2jzx8mA=; b=BUdI13 jkBkEGWstJoObmWUK7tY/6EWJfv2YG1Nfurx6PJXJtezRbnJZi/83iPbeUqOa5MV 1gUelhiv0Xw1XnD5bsqM9vlm62j8pjNG4UG0I6pRbcC54Rk0NuQKYg4w7ip9jZI2 MPyR591cCDTNHvSqKL4LeWxqnBJpZ3P+fSJ44= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=cHQUxEAc/Zu0dNREXqaJEWJbxXC1RXzx PjID+ST1LJSSfBAISXLU7BjYKkidNnyKJ9LPreaIwdwrX89z3u0oiuhbULP9ps5V aFSBBs9AWG2wtjE8SixG6jk/g7vk0IPz4KxKbDUXEIjCB5nkQDBPPFgf+Ptff5FK txbXtLGZKbs= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCD58C254A; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5667BC2549; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 16:40:17 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jeff King Cc: Bagas Sanjaya , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: There should have be git gc --repack-arguments References: Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 13:40:16 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 7 Apr 2021 15:37:18 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 7655B072-97E1-11EB-ABF0-D152C8D8090B-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jeff King writes: >> ... git repack ... --max-pack-size= to create split and >> smaller packs instead. > ... > You can also set pack.packSizeLimit for the latter, though I do not > recommend it. It will not help with memory usage (neither while > repacking nor for later commands). In other words, passing --max-pack-size, whether it is done with a new --repack-arguments option or it is done with the existing pack.packSizeLimit configuration, would make things worse. So in conclusion: - attempting to repack everything into one pack on a memory starved box would be helped with reduced window memory size. - on a small box, it may make sense to avoid repacking everything into one in the first place, but we do not want the number of packs to grow unbounded. Would the new geometric repack feature help here, especially for the latter?