From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: auto gc again Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:09:16 -0700 Message-ID: <7vfxumyr2r.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20080318180118.GC17940@kernel.dk> <7vd4pq2ymo.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vod9a1h8e.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vd4pq1el3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Jens Axboe , git@vger.kernel.org To: Nicolas Pitre X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Mar 20 05:10:15 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JcC6S-0000d2-Aj for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:10:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750831AbYCTEJ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:09:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750816AbYCTEJ1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:09:27 -0400 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:34556 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750729AbYCTEJZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:09:25 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 343062630; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:09:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569B8262E; Thu, 20 Mar 2008 00:09:19 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: (Nicolas Pitre's message of "Wed, 19 Mar 2008 23:13:52 -0400 (EDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Nicolas Pitre writes: > So you have 17.1 seconds for a single pack vs 18.4 seconds for 66 packs. > > Compare that to 24.9s without that patch. Very interesting --- why should it affect a single pack case at all? > And I still have some further optimizations to implement eventually > (http://marc.info/?l=git&m=118062793413099&w=2), but which would > probably make a significant difference only in the hundreds-of-packs > case anyway. > > So I really think that the default gc.autopacklimit could be raised. Thanks, let's raise it to 50 then. But I am still puzzled...