From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F03C1F859 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 22:32:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932724AbcHYWcD (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:32:03 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com ([64.147.108.70]:64972 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932692AbcHYWcB (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:32:01 -0400 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1F93410F; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:31:59 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=KQx+wLg8Z2w9wiRa2owfEe+Vnsk=; b=T9I0ws 2OLva/CN+xuR0g38WdLGhBzW4QcnZsifHQ0pe1Lrk06xhEMQd48fzKFDVLvA0u0U M3CvHN3h22La01mE6w6YyT+Y2TvBU9Cj79jPIc4r3DqElxbpwzlkqzSVFGA6BKER iB+sq+YYs71T69vM+60j1+bfwJJ8cRzf7dZ4w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=RG0aMxBtNs6JFNFYQvYrKAx4XUlZNaAu UQdgKo8FsD6BqAVhVv1xnwT5SbgsH0h51QYLY975EwtItmK+hGfCz55jjjuzvw0f LJWdE4Wwv4fDcx/bUt5ovyYoF4cwMQGDY1PrIA2EXvITotHS6AJ+jPYGjR15CqY4 FQlkm7sHZ04= Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E44533410E; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:31:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F22F3410D; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 18:31:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Stefan Beller Cc: Lars Schneider , "git\@vger.kernel.org" , Jeff King , Johannes Schindelin , Jakub =?utf-8?Q?Nar=C4=99bski?= , Martin-Louis Bright Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 06/13] pkt-line: add functions to read/write flush terminated packet streams References: <20160825110752.31581-1-larsxschneider@gmail.com> <20160825110752.31581-7-larsxschneider@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:31:57 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Stefan Beller's message of "Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:46:06 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: BCABC9C6-6B13-11E6-AFC0-F7BB12518317-77302942!pb-smtp1.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Stefan Beller writes: > So the API provided by these read/write functions is intended > to move a huge chunks of data. And as it puts the data on the wire one > packet after the other without the possibility to intervene and e.g. send > a side channel progress bar update, I would question the design of this. Hmph, I didn't think about it. But shouldn't one be able to set up sideband and channel one such large transfer on one band, while multiplexing other payload on other bands? > If I understand correctly this will be specifically used for large > files locally, > so e.g. a file of 5 GB (such as a virtual machine tracked in Git), would > require about 80k packets. What is wrong about that? 4*80k = 320kB overhead for length fields to transfer 5GB worth of data? I do not think it is worth worrying about it. But I am more surprised by seeing that "why not a single huge packet" suggestion immediately after you talked about "without the possibility to intervene". They do not seem to be remotely related; in fact, they are going into opposite directions. Puzzled.