From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>,
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>,
"git@vger.kernel.org" <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fetch-pack: grow stateless RPC windows exponentially
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:40:27 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160720134027.GA19194@sigill.intra.peff.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160719195347.GF29326@google.com>
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:53:47PM -0700, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Even if it is conservative, I wonder if it is truly a good idea to
> > make it exponentially grow forever from that point of view. Would
> > it give essentially the same result to you if we discard the patch
> > in question and just raise LARGE_FLUSH to 10k instead?
>
> I don't think it would be essentially the same result. As discussed
> before, unlike the bidi (ssh:// and git:// protocols) case, linear
> growth is expensive in the stateless-rpc (https://) case --- each
> round of negotiation requires re-sending the existing 'have's and
> requires the peer repeatedly processing this increasingly large list
> of 'have's.
>
> For comparison, in the bidi case, linear growth of next_flush means
> sending a bounded number of 'have's per round and is quite sensible.
>
> In the stateless-rpc case, linear growth means getting a bounded
> number of 'have's worth of benefit (new 'have's) in each round, in
> exchange for a linearly increasing cost (existing 'have's). That is a
> high cost for limited benefit. Exponential growth is a better deal.
This kind of reasoning would be great in the commit message (and if
possible, numbers showing empirical improvement). On reading it, I
understood the "what", but not why or to what extent the slower growth
is a problem.
-Peff
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-20 13:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-18 18:36 [PATCH] fetch-pack: grow stateless RPC windows exponentially Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 18:55 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-18 19:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-18 19:16 ` Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 19:31 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-18 20:00 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-18 21:05 ` Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 21:36 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-18 22:21 ` [PATCH v2] " Jonathan Tan
2016-07-18 22:40 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-19 16:46 ` Stefan Beller
2016-07-19 19:03 ` Jonathan Tan
2016-07-19 19:17 ` Stefan Beller
2016-07-19 19:23 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-19 19:53 ` Jonathan Nieder
2016-07-19 20:20 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-07-20 13:40 ` Jeff King [this message]
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
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160720134027.GA19194@sigill.intra.peff.net \
--to=peff@peff.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jonathantanmy@google.com \
--cc=jrnieder@gmail.com \
--cc=sbeller@google.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.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
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 read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).