From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C7631FAF4 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:12:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751882AbdBHTKV (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:10:21 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:51684 "EHLO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751550AbdBHTJp (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:09:45 -0500 Received: (qmail 20915 invoked by uid 109); 8 Feb 2017 19:09:01 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 19:09:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 18170 invoked by uid 111); 8 Feb 2017 19:09:05 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:09:05 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 08 Feb 2017 14:08:58 -0500 Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 14:08:58 -0500 From: Jeff King To: David Turner Cc: Junio C Hamano , Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List Subject: Re: "disabling bitmap writing, as some objects are not being packed"? Message-ID: <20170208190858.rjoqehbhyizlwg5q@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1481922331.28176.11.camel@frank> <1486515795.1938.45.camel@novalis.org> <1486542299.1938.47.camel@novalis.org> <1486580742.1938.52.camel@novalis.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1486580742.1938.52.camel@novalis.org> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:05:42PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 09:44 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Duy Nguyen writes: > > > > > On second thought, perhaps gc.autoDetach should default to false if > > > there's no tty, since its main point it to stop breaking interactive > > > usage. That would make the server side happy (no tty there). > > > > Sounds like an idea, but wouldn't that keep the end-user coming over > > the network waiting after accepting a push until the GC completes, I > > wonder. If an impatient user disconnects, would that end up killing > > an ongoing GC? etc. > > Regardless, it's impolite to keep the user waiting. So, I think we > should just not write the "too many unreachable loose objects" message > if auto-gc is on. Does that sound OK? I thought the point of that message was to prevent auto-gc from kicking in over and over again due to objects that won't actually get pruned. I wonder if you'd want to either bump the auto-gc object limit, or possibly reduce the gc.pruneExpire limit to keep this situation from coming up in the first place (or at least mitigating the amount of time it's the case). -Peff