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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,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 EA19C1F4C0 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 20:39:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731273AbfJVUj1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:39:27 -0400 Received: from mail-qt1-f172.google.com ([209.85.160.172]:34958 "EHLO mail-qt1-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725788AbfJVUj0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:39:26 -0400 Received: by mail-qt1-f172.google.com with SMTP id m15so28965210qtq.2 for ; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:39:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linuxfoundation.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=X5+vJAcXo5AWWvGMPvdC5ZBpuFThkAM1KYBG4i3dse4=; b=Qz5qNBvL1tkefypL//gHgO8E4NWAXGPWPNhhUdcbmpGve1+gsBs/ijUExJft2MaAsU UshSGFGL7fAiPDJaYtBcr0NDQMBcQQURgnGrFSta7yv7+Yuie2a8Rbg2uWE3OCEe3aiX 120ZE3JyVu4uvTZXupE9OCzTOKAxHVGD4uYY4= 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 :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=X5+vJAcXo5AWWvGMPvdC5ZBpuFThkAM1KYBG4i3dse4=; b=kNvPL0OiAXK/0IYDIvdvvqJtcIwVehw0dOUtDo4Mb1tfUl2Hhi1aUbWan1IdlwKlXm YX2x0fY2sseWHog42ROCdqFgANSdKxQf13pd/evaMmCYmVdkcSmpn/oU7BQmz5LKp0m5 eyGxIVZyozZ5JMqEtmUz7mcVqAsV0Zrpstc5iIxaMUc1DFV06eQNIRr9Ot2x50ahinMO 7y4bd14mrCC7Y9FgwmhEX1/8HdCnYqZ5AFclOMiYMLZH3D3kXFzFBnXuHYhVib5xecp5 ZaqMpc5rR/BEgC2n6id8/FqV4DBkJnhERjgpYzI8gDGeGIlWAbiGZFIlT89Ezw6vVfu0 VZkg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUZjcwfvOlAQHbsQzVXqHaTQXeO5FPEOwVs7UP2kuG4SdVSvNQn a/Hs7TjxjHC5p2pa/O3SD8VW7H7R/qAjdA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUFGof5gmRRXmjtsKx6NEA+w1WQu1gbBEZ1dQFk7HjmCUa6ZYyr5yL64+rsjitxzJGul4jQg== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:7646:: with SMTP id i6mr5615640qtr.251.1571776765711; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chatter.i7.local (192-0-228-88.cpe.teksavvy.com. [192.0.228.88]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h23sm9692010qkk.128.2019.10.22.13.39.24 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 22 Oct 2019 13:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 16:39:23 -0400 From: Konstantin Ryabitsev To: Jeff King Cc: Derrick Stolee , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau Subject: Re: is commitGraph useful on the server side? Message-ID: <20191022203923.GA3020@chatter.i7.local> Mail-Followup-To: Jeff King , Derrick Stolee , git@vger.kernel.org, Taylor Blau References: <20191022165112.GA4960@chatter.i7.local> <20191022200615.GA12270@sigill.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191022200615.GA12270@sigill.intra.peff.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: >> I'm biased, but I think the commit-graph is generally really good to >> have >> in almost all cases. I actually do not know of a good reason to _not_ have >> it. > >A lot depends on how much you do on the server. If you're serving a web >interface that runs things like `rev-list`, or `for-each-ref >--contains`, etc, then you should see a big improvement. Ah, good to know, so something like cgit would see an improvement if there are commit graphs generated for the repos it serves. >If you're _just_ serving fetches with `upload-pack`, you might see some >small improvement during fetch negotiation. But I suspect it would be >dwarfed by the cost of actually generating packs. Likewise, the >traversal there will be dominated by accessing trees (and if that is >expensive, then you ought to be using reachability bitmaps). We do generate bitmaps on a routine basis. OK, I think I'm convinced that enabling commitgraph and generating them regularly is going to be a net win. Thanks, everyone. -K