[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] Repack git repo?



On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:33:29AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 08/03/2017 09:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 09:16:13AM +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> So I was checking out the repo the other day and it took ages. So it got
> >> me thinking what might be the problem. Looks like a part of it is that
> >> our pack is split among ~250 files. Therefore when somebody does
> >> checkout git needs to repack it into a single pack every time. And this
> >> may take ages on such slow processor as Atom is. However, reading some
> >> docs on this it looks like 'git gc --aggressive' is not advised rather
> >> than 'git repack'.
> > 
> > I created a 'tmp' repo and ran 'repack' on it, but afaict, there's no
> > appreciable difference.
> 
> In fact, there is. I just finished running 'git repack -a -d' over the
> 'tmp' repo and here are the results:
> 
> $ time git clone git://libvirt.org/libvirt.git libvirt_temp.git
> Cloning into 'libvirt_temp.git'...
> remote: Counting objects: 236385, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (38422/38422), done.
> remote: Total 236385 (delta 200296), reused 232761 (delta 196975)
> Receiving objects: 100% (236385/236385), 297.08 MiB | 5.55 MiB/s, done.
> Resolving deltas: 100% (200296/200296), done.
> 
> real    2m40.089s
> user    1m2.831s
> sys     0m2.970s
> 
> $ time git clone git://libvirt.org/tmp tmp.git
> Cloning into 'tmp.git'...
> remote: Counting objects: 236365, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (35400/35400), done.
> remote: Total 236365 (delta 200277), reused 236065 (delta 199977)
> Receiving objects: 100% (236365/236365), 297.19 MiB | 6.17 MiB/s, done.
> Resolving deltas: 100% (200277/200277), done.
> 
> real    1m16.209s
> user    1m7.782s
> sys     0m2.940s
> 
> In the first case, the network transmission took ~54s, so prep work on
> server took ~1m45s. In the second case, network transmission took 48s,
> so prep work took just ~28s. Therefore I think it makes sense to run the
> command. If nobody objects I can do that later today.

Yep, that's fine with me.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]