From: | "Daniel Farina" <drfarina(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL GIT mirror status |
Date: | 2009-01-08 09:56:59 |
Message-ID: | 7b97c5a40901080156v2fd7201aw51e5e99f23e0da9@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Well, if you want to give it a try and then report back about whether there
> were any noticeable effects ...
>
I ran a regular git repack -a -d. This took about 3.5 cpu-intensive
hours, but made object counting *much* (I cannot stress that enough)
faster and made the repository shrink dramatically: 361M to 246M. I
also won't have any more open-file-limit problems (things like git
fsck --full would fail because of too many open files until I raised
ulimit -n). I should also mention that cloning from http seems
completely broken because of the huge number of packs...potentially
also an open file limit issue.
You may want to run 'git repack -a -d' also, but I'd advise waiting
until tomorrow when I write up my full report and compare that with
the much more aggressive packing options. My estimation is that using
the already-repacked repository that finding new deltas will take
about nine hours with extremely aggressive settings. It has a higher
likelihood of being worthwhile on projects as large as Postgres, so
we'll see.
After this I can either solidify the recipe I used and you can burn
another fifteen or so hours of compute time to re-derive this result
or I can simply give you the pack generated. You can use 'git fsck
--full' to ensure the pack's fidelity.
I suggest running 'git repack -a -d' to consolidate packs every once
in a while, maybe monthly or semi-monthly. It's quite cheap if there
aren't so many packs and/or loose objects. Aggressive repacking such
as what I'm doing may only be useful on a yearly basis or even
longer...unless git learns some better ways to build packs. I also
hope you (and everyone else) has git version >= 1.5.3, when the pack
format changed.
fdr
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2009-01-08 20:26:00 | Re: Missing bug-report numbers? |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2009-01-08 02:35:58 | Re: Missing bug-report numbers? |