From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63051F461 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 17:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391796AbfIFR43 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:56:29 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([104.130.231.41]:42330 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S2387514AbfIFR43 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:56:29 -0400 Received: (qmail 21626 invoked by uid 109); 6 Sep 2019 17:56:29 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with SMTP; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 17:56:29 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 5924 invoked by uid 111); 6 Sep 2019 17:58:15 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:58:15 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:56:28 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Derrick Stolee Cc: Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, avarab@gmail.com, garimasigit@gmail.com, Derrick Stolee Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] fetch: add fetch.writeCommitGraph config setting Message-ID: <20190906175628.GH23181@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <49f877c85ca2be5bb76d9082ee4aa26e26111a14.1567477320.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20190904030829.GB28836@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:00:40PM -0400, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 9/5/2019 4:37 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Jeff King writes: > > > >> Do we want to to have fetch.writeCommitGraph, receive.writeCommitGraph, > >> and then a master transfer.writeCommitGraph? > > > > If anything, it may be good for consistency. > > > > I am not sure if it is a good idea to trigger writing the commit > > graph when accepting a push, though. It tends to be a lot finer > > grained than fetching, right? > > And I expect a push to include many fewer commits than a fetch. > In a server environment, I would expect to have a separate > maintenance task responsible for updating the commit-graph after > receiving new data, but not in an in-line fashion with the push. That's probably how we'll end up doing it at GitHub, because we run a big server farm that has a job-queueing system for periodic maintenance, etc. But keep in mind the "little guy" who is hosting a few repositories for themselves or their company. They'd presumably want the benefits here, too, right? We already have options to trigger auto-gc and update-server-info for them, so why not this maintenance, too? > Think about the situation of many pushes that happen in a short > burst: one write after all of the pushes would have close to the > same performance benefits as writing with every push, but does > a lot less work. Sure, but wouldn't that similarly apply to fetching? What is it that makes bursts of pushes more likely than bursts of fetches? -Peff