From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB311F97E for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 11:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727051AbeJJTFB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:05:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:33162 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726825AbeJJTFB (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 15:05:01 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id e4-v6so5384768wrs.0 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:43:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent:in-reply-to:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H7x9QfShmzZ/ZkAYuY3Qw0hNvdRy/5bC4uwMadIk+14=; b=tFyB0pDjO9MLHnO9t78BLs1iNqmULWl8AaJT+R4I/v3uWbGEjpfP8JXZBlG+FwcEYD KrPjtMTnlD6GutGAZb7DtqnEMz31+JwIsZWTMp1AOA+vfXkDvdtWxrDm531IoZX/JnBc cu+rO7LO7zfb7zy3iGG8fJQI/sbQrLe7xZLVdANCogUS7mL+MppYtFk5lGDOAR1V5qsW ZBjIlz8iheVc9JoLg4QjH+6REj59YECB41HYKauCy9gyasFKALVJSPLvdiIQQkI1ST7D NEtifzxOhSMoYYTc/rz7b/bnKVkUChulYirbrK39O76nNHQECFCmg64jVowndJRdFCty vO1g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:references:user-agent :in-reply-to:date:message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H7x9QfShmzZ/ZkAYuY3Qw0hNvdRy/5bC4uwMadIk+14=; b=cVXbitGNNnjF6vDLO70ty5QhBXBeGt+neZrkyCF/ttMNHa253jrWU9O2Mz1N4vBS8Y axwsStWeI2ZVPJc7mdUi9MQRXkkQGOEwvinz05+GGlekV1BEBiahFujV6l2pe1KDL+dQ U+SQHdJdLGiOFZRbYYRDOBBGwIZl3rOrqgxJMDf8XpwpRjrsYkXwEAgGX5kUip4DRGrg sx3YZtp5lV+YVdm/tQ1nV9sE06ARRJq5lVlsSfX0xyq+PORJzJw+vHiVT/e3U9f/E8vd 59Kv6JhpCI5hNoGlpPCI/8I8B5XFZYdOAX1t1pjtYoA0yM7kL35xzPSAdWTCzUM8T5dZ dKfw== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfojFFjwUH1NL0Yp/7JOJH348MEruB8VfqXZoM31rOdK76D861L2G bRuLzWxMwQxAh9Ts4EVj+vU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV60M7knUA+2yV63C5Adoo6yDU6gVRTKr6vvEf8WvVKePaNHzy2FIDSjMZunbV6ZPDOPu8HB+bQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:a547:: with SMTP id j7-v6mr25449448wrb.220.1539171793144; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:43:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from evledraar (proxy-gw-a.booking.com. [5.57.21.8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 67-v6sm15542226wmd.1.2018.10.10.04.43.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 04:43:12 -0700 (PDT) From: =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason To: Martin Langhoff Cc: Junio C Hamano , Jonathan Nieder , e@80x24.org, Git Mailing List Subject: Re: git svn clone/fetch hits issues with gc --auto References: <20181009234502.oxzfwirjcew2sxrm@dcvr> <878t36f3ed.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> User-agent: Debian GNU/Linux testing (buster); Emacs 25.2.2; mu4e 1.1.0 In-reply-to: <878t36f3ed.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:43:11 +0200 Message-ID: <877eiqf2nk.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Wed, Oct 10 2018, Martin Langhoff wrote: > >> Looking around, Jonathan Tan's "[PATCH] gc: do not warn about too many >> loose objects" makes sense to me. >> >> - remove unactionable warning >> - as the warning is gone, no gc.log is produced >> - subsequent gc runs don't exit due to gc.log >> >> My very humble +1 on that. >> >> As for downsides... if we have truly tons of _recent_ loose objects, >> it'll ... take disk space? I'm fine with that. > > As Jeff's > https://public-inbox.org/git/20180716175103.GB18636@sigill.intra.peff.net/ > and my https://public-inbox.org/git/878t69dgvx.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ > note it's a bit more complex than that. > > I.e.: > > - The warning is actionable, you can decide to up your expiration > policy. > > - We use this warning as a proxy for "let's not run for a day", > otherwise we'll just grind on gc --auto trying to consolidate > possibly many hundreds of K of loose objects only to find none of > them can be pruned because the run into the expiry policy. With the > warning we retry that once per day, which sucks less. > > - This conflation of the user-visible warning and the policy is an > emergent effect of how the different gc pieces interact, which as I > note in the linked thread(s) sucks. > > But we can't just yank one piece away (as Jonathan's patch does) > without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. > > It will mean that e.g. if you have 10k loose objects in your git.git, > and created them just now, that every time you run anything that runs > "gc --auto" we'll fork to the background, peg a core at 100% CPU for > 2-3 minutes or whatever it is, only do get nowhere and do the same > thing again in ~3 minutes when you run your next command. > > - I think you may be underestimating some of the cases where this ends > up taking a huge amount of disk space (and now we'll issue at least > *some*) warning. See my > https://public-inbox.org/git/87fu6bmr0j.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ > where a repo's .git went from 2.5G to 30G due to being stuck in this > mode. > >> For more aggressive gc options, thoughts: >> >> - Do we always consider git gc --prune=now "safe" in a "won't delete >> stuff the user is likely to want" sense? For example -- are the >> references from reflogs enough safety? > > The --prune=now command is not generally safe for the reasons noted in > the "NOTES" section in "git help gc". > >> - Even if we don't, for some commands it should be safe to run git gc >> --prune=now at the end of the process, for example an import that >> generates a new git repo (git svn clone). > > Yeah I don't see a problem with that, I didn't know about this > interesting use-case, i.e. that "git svn clone" will create a lot of > loose objects. > > As seen in my > https://public-inbox.org/git/87tvm3go42.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ I'm > working on making "gc --auto" run at the end of clone for unrelated > reasons, i.e. so we generate the commit-graph, seems like "git svn > clone" could do something similar. > > So it's creating a lot of garbage during its cloning process that can > just be immediately thrown away? What is it doing? Using the object > store as a scratch pad for its own temporary state? To answer my own question (which was based on a thinko) it's continually creating loose objects during import, i.e. packs are not involved (don't know why I thought that), so yeah, because all of those have <2wks expiry we end up warning as gc --auto is run. But I actually think the git-svn import is revealing an entirely different problem. I.e. when I clone I seem to be getting a refs/remotes/git-svn branch that's kept up-to-date, and when I "gc" everything's consolidated into a pack, we don't have any loose objects that are meant for expiry. But the reason git-svn is whining is because we're doing this in gc (simplified for the sake af discussion): if (too_many_loose()) { expire(); repack(); if (too_many_loose()) die("oh noes too many loose that don't match our expiry policy!"); } But they don't fall under our expiry policy at all, we're just assuming that a crapload of loose objects haven't been added in the interim from when we ran expire() + repack() until when we check too_many_loose() again. That's a logic error which we could just solve at some expense by seeing *which* objects are loose and candidates for expiry at the beginning, and not warning if at the end we have *different* loose objects that should be consolidated, that just means we genuinely should run gc again. Or is this just wrong? I don't really know. If the above is true I'm missing how tweaking gc.pruneExpire=5.minutes.ago is helping. Surely we'd either just end up with the same set of loose objects (since the clone is still running), or alternatively if git-svn hadn't gotten around to updating refs create a corrupt repo. >> m >> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 10:49 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >>> >>> Forwarding to Jonathan, as I think this is an interesting supporting >>> vote for the topic that we were stuck on. >>> >>> Eric Wong writes: >>> >>> > Martin Langhoff wrote: >>> >> Hi folks, >>> >> >>> >> Long time no see! Importing a 3GB (~25K revs, tons of files) SVN repo >>> >> I hit the gc error: >>> >> >>> >> warning: There are too many unreachable loose objects; run 'git prune' >>> >> to remove them. >>> >> gc --auto: command returned error: 255 >>> > >>> > GC can be annoying when that happens... For git-svn, perhaps >>> > this can be appropriate to at least allow the import to continue: >>> > >>> > diff --git a/perl/Git/SVN.pm b/perl/Git/SVN.pm >>> > index 76b2965905..9b0caa3d47 100644 >>> > --- a/perl/Git/SVN.pm >>> > +++ b/perl/Git/SVN.pm >>> > @@ -999,7 +999,7 @@ sub restore_commit_header_env { >>> > } >>> > >>> > sub gc { >>> > - command_noisy('gc', '--auto'); >>> > + eval { command_noisy('gc', '--auto') }; >>> > }; >>> > >>> > sub do_git_commit { >>> > >>> > >>> > But yeah, somebody else who works on git regularly could >>> > probably stop repack from writing thousands of loose >>> > objects (and instead write a self-contained pack with >>> > those objects, instead). I haven't followed git closely >>> > lately, myself.