From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Grimm Subject: Re: People unaware of the importance of "git gc"? Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:29:07 -0700 Message-ID: <46E046F3.9000703@midwinter.com> References: <20070905074206.GA31750@artemis.corp> <87odgh0zn6.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <46DEF1FA.4050500@midwinter.com> <877in50y7p.fsf@hades.wkstn.nix> <7vr6lcj2zi.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vk5r3adlx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , Johannes Schindelin , Nicolas Pitre , Nix , Git Mailing List To: Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 06 20:29:21 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1ITM6N-0008Ts-Mj for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:29:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756345AbXIFS3L (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:29:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756246AbXIFS3J (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:29:09 -0400 Received: from tater2.midwinter.com ([216.32.86.91]:54217 "HELO midwinter.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1756253AbXIFS3I (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2007 14:29:08 -0400 Received: (qmail 10252 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2007 18:29:08 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=200606; d=midwinter.com; b=KgyQDDBTfUCTFMo/MPnutMs5K79bk246Ox+M8illK8AEX+X/wR6LiAFXpgjHNer7 ; Received: from localhost (HELO sgrimm-mbp.local) (koreth@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 6 Sep 2007 18:29:08 -0000 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Linus Torvalds wrote: > IOW, if you get lots of small incrmental packs, after a while you really > *do* need to do "git gc" to get the real pack generated. > I wonder if it makes sense to repack just the small incremental packs into a large (but still incremental) pack, rather than repacking the entire repository. Presumably that would be a lot faster than a full "git gc", while still giving you reasonably good packing (at least, if the threshold is set to a hugh enough number of small packs) and keeping things fast. That could run as a second phase of "git gc --auto" -- it should be quick enough to not be too terribly annoying since we're not running it in the background. Yeah, if you use the same repo for a long time, you'll accumulate a ton of medium-sized packs this way, but (a) that's much better than the situation we have today, and (b) it puts off the performance degradation for long enough that it becomes more reasonable to expect people to find out about running the full "git gc" in the meantime, or for git to further evolve to not need it. -Steve