From: Michael Haggerty <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Shawn Pearce <email@example.com>, git <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: David Turner <email@example.com>, Jeff King <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: RefTree: Alternate ref backend Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:41:43 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <56796F37.email@example.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <CAJo=hJvnAPNAdDcAAwAvU9C4RVeQdoS3Ev9WTguHx4fD0V_nOg@mail.gmail.com> On 12/17/2015 10:02 PM, Shawn Pearce wrote: > I started playing around with the idea of storing references directly > in Git. Exploiting the GITLINK tree entry, we can associate a name to > any SHA-1. > > By storing all references in a single tree, atomic transactions are > possible. Its a simple compare-and-swap of a single 40 byte SHA-1. > This of course leads to a bootstrapping problem, where do we store the > 40 byte SHA-1? For this example its just $GIT_DIR/refs/txn/committed > as a classical loose reference. I like this general idea a lot, even while recognizing some practical problems that other people have pointed out. I especially like the idea of having truly atomic multi-reference updates. I'm curious why you decided to store all of the references in a single list, similar to the packed-refs file. This design means that the whole object has to be rewritten whenever any reference is updated . Certainly, storing the references in a single tree *object* is not a requirement for having atomic transitions. I would have expected a design where the layout of the references in trees mimics the layout of loose references in the filesystem; e.g., one tree object for "refs/", one for "refs/heads/" one for "refs/remotes/" etc. This design would reduce the amount of rewriting that is needed when one or a few references are updated. Another reason that I find a hierarchical layout intriguing would be that one could imagine using the SHA-1s of reference namespace subtrees to speed up the negotiation phase of "git fetch". In the common case that I use the local namespace "refs/remotes/origin" to track an upstream repo, the SHA-1 of my "refs/remotes/origin" tree would usually represent a complete description of the state of the upstream references at the time that I last fetched. My client could tell the server have-tree $SHA1 , where $SHA1 is the hash of the tree representing "refs/remotes/origin/". If the server keeps a reflog as you have described (but hierarchically), then the server could look up $SHA1 and immediately know the full set of references, and therefore of objects, that I fetched last time. More generally, the negotiation could proceed down the reference namespace tree and stop whenever commonality is found. There are a lot of "if"s in that last paragraph, and maybe it's not workable. For example, if I'm not pruning on fetch, then my reference tree won't be identical to one that was ever present on the server and this technique wouldn't necessarily help. But if, for example, we change the default to pruning, or perhaps record some extra reftree SHA-1's, then in most cases I would expect that this trick could reduce the effort of negotiation to negligible in most cases, and reduce the time of the whole fetch to negligible in the case that the clone is already up-to-date. Michael  At GitHub, we store public repositories in networks with a shared object store. The central repository in each network can have 10M+ references. So for us, rewriting that many references for every reference update would be unworkable. -- Michael Haggerty firstname.lastname@example.org
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-22 15:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2015-12-17 21:02 Shawn Pearce 2015-12-17 21:57 ` Junio C Hamano 2015-12-17 22:15 ` Shawn Pearce 2015-12-17 22:10 ` Jeff King 2015-12-17 22:28 ` Shawn Pearce 2015-12-18 1:36 ` Mike Hommey 2015-12-22 15:41 ` Michael Haggerty [this message] 2015-12-22 16:11 ` Shawn Pearce 2015-12-22 17:04 ` Dave Borowitz 2015-12-22 17:17 ` Michael Haggerty 2015-12-22 18:50 ` Shawn Pearce 2015-12-22 19:09 ` Junio C Hamano 2015-12-22 19:11 ` Shawn Pearce 2015-12-22 19:34 ` Junio C Hamano 2015-12-23 4:59 ` Michael Haggerty 2015-12-24 1:33 ` Junio C Hamano [not found] ` <4689734.cEcQ2vR0aQ@mfick1-lnx> 2015-12-22 20:56 ` Martin Fick 2015-12-22 21:23 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=56796F37.email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: RefTree: Alternate ref backend' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).