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=-3.0 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no 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 C1A44202A5 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:49:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752560AbdIVWtu (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:49:50 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:46930 "EHLO mail-pg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752338AbdIVWtt (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 18:49:49 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id i130so1300737pgc.3 for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:49:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yrDlySkNtSv/MG1VFF3qTGl8gUDmNflcg9yotPWdu8k=; b=hWbSca8U//LqLM1zi45rNTC8TYdrGvODxNxoGKTcbeSF1h12kzJ/I9nZVoETzK2wH4 ghCT+9Xowv90Fw/95QeSrTccD8T8YypqfkNIB0Ep5eB30FklUsZuiad/0K3f5J8kEhlM WL7sj91QnvvJOc86bHWdbKbaIp8TrbF1zdPFC/8lNHiPkIVY/WmsocXZvLZVlhU7OynK aSzWGK1gRwuhFypdeh6uNKWphNKnFgI+BH8K14D7vd0sAU9Co/o9lm6iFyryOWp2YFPG FZ9AJJc0rCHFxKBoQDrPNvFT7snSxuLbRBPaMd7EIgypHV+9QqEv+QwUUaifT9jHsBrc 78Bg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yrDlySkNtSv/MG1VFF3qTGl8gUDmNflcg9yotPWdu8k=; b=bE0vEwu2jE/er1SK3I1RHNhwJ7xv8FhwOtbI5EilE6GftqEAzwQhHNbdYkOxb5HgtZ omCy4YhJlJVvaM0247N/ZJmzMlm4KPCi266UwwMfp5gngIGdcH7I6Hf6F59lE9oexpBw DsvKWa0yaeXFiSxsDv2INeoPebo6kNTy6Mb2Nii+pG12y6ac3epRj8vYQOMyl2f+tv5c D+q1BN5dt6DNcytBUXJQIAhRWFtom9fS2o3MqHt+rGCi37mewvuR8rmxHhyuUGR7Er10 9COxQOFmtj4nOsnlqPHDKfx40oubEEkn+bzgA+yjbP7EaIJuiKZsohubYyBVQ00PRsAi VAUg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUippxmzy5RbCI+wSD12mtfXRE+X62q/6lffBkXHqXmEVg3dgxxA qWBup7TlkqHCwExnnze95jVfEB7cV+M= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCwNPPbIC1YUHIfUsngJMOD60ZW49h8tsuY/TH+Aw6Ey8CornyxjpKc0BcCdchwmXdUSbebaA== X-Received: by 10.99.136.73 with SMTP id l70mr528083pgd.185.1506120588790; Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:49:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from twelve3.mtv.corp.google.com ([2620:0:100e:422:840f:cadd:b54e:2e8c]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x4sm953127pfb.101.2017.09.22.15.49.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:49:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 15:49:46 -0700 From: Jonathan Tan To: Jeff Hostetler Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peartben@gmail.com, Christian Couder Subject: Re: RFC: Design and code of partial clones (now, missing commits and trees OK) Message-Id: <20170922154946.5052732a061155a3f81ae2a0@google.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20170915134343.3814dc38@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> <20170921154214.0d2ac45f@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.4.1 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 17:02:11 -0400 Jeff Hostetler wrote: > > I was struggling a bit with the terminology, true. > > > > Right now I'm thinking of: > > - promisor remote (as you defined) > > - promisor packfile (as you defined) > > - promisor object is an object known to belong to the promisor (whether > > because we have it in a promisor packfile or because it is referenced > > by an object in a promisor packfile) > > > > This might eliminate "promise(d)", and thus eliminate the confusion > > between "promised" and "promisor", but I haven't done an exhaustive > > search. > > > > maybe just call the "promised" ones "missing". They are not the same, though - "missing" usually just means that the local repo does not have it, without regard to whether another repo has it. > >> I guess it depends on how many missing-objects you expect the client > >> to have. My concern here is that we're limiting the design to the > >> "occasional" big file problem, rather than the more general scale > >> problem. > > > > Do you have a specific situation in mind? > > > > I have would like to be able do sparse-enlistments in the Windows > source tree. (3.5M files at HEAD.) Most developers only need a small > feature area (a device driver or file system or whatever) and not the > whole tree. A typical Windows developer may have only 30-50K files > populated. If we can synchronize on a sparse-checkout spec and use > that for both the checkout and the clone/fetch, then we can bulk fetch > the blobs that they'll actually need. GVFS can hydrate the files as > they touch them, but I can use this to pre-fetch the needed blobs in > bulk, rather than faulting and fetching them one-by-one. > > So, my usage may have >95% of the ODB be missing blobs. Contrast that > with the occasional large blob / LFS usage where you may have <5% of > the ODB as large objects (by count of OIDs not disk usage). I don't think the current design precludes a more intelligent bulk fetching (e.g. being allowed to specify a "want" tree and several "have" trees, although we will have to figure out a design for that, including how to select the "have" trees to inform the server about). In the meantime, yes, this will be more useful for occasional large blob repos, and (if/when the hook support is added) a GVFS situation where the missing objects are available network-topologically close by.