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: AS19905 185.70.40.0/24 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from mail-40130.protonmail.ch (mail-40130.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B3A41F453 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2018 08:34:50 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 08:34:36 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=default; t=1541234086; bh=tuH1pRFH/nxCElcNMsQNV+GWVccfq4bFkLwt8QjX688=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From; b=Jd2j+9kAie2P4SXkGdHOpH6KQMmjmP0AH2yZwGCTWXPffgO2+ehk33n+nx4GGI61W hEFVAanhX9sYMsB7Eap8wHLWpE6RFomf+TZ0iToJANGlVyEoetUHWTBhSU/+Czu690 KzpR6NTPvl2h3r4+TJKzCEY74Blhw+BvDjwhX/Vk= To: Eric Wong From: Yaron Scheffer Cc: Konstantin Ryabitsev , "meta@public-inbox.org" Reply-To: Yaron Scheffer Subject: Re: Corrupted lkml repo? Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20181102203658.otux6kwxsr3wh37y@dcvr> References: <20181030153806.GB9025@pure.paranoia.local> <20181102203658.otux6kwxsr3wh37y@dcvr> Feedback-ID: Nd_c8r8sTT4SzkZ-slBafKh3YGBv8DeKcCzmzPtzvTHObv-w8QSNjSWL_zfan6XW5yj4aggVXfVnWmMB4lcUJw==:Ext:ProtonMail MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: Eric Wong wrote: > Yaron: does disabling smart HTTP to rely on only GET transfers > improve things? Smart HTTP is great for bandwidth reduction but > uses more CPU/memory on the server side, and perhaps > recommending clients do that for big repos is a good thing > anyways for the initial clone. > > GIT_SMART_HTTP=3D0 git clone --mirror ... Maybe, but If "git clone" stresses the server to the point of breakage as you say, something should be done on the server side. I've been using the kernel.org repo as Konstantin suggested. Perhaps lower the recommended maximum shard size? I didn't hit this issue with the most recent shard, which is about 50% smaller.