[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval |
Date: |
Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:15:23 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
Bob Proulx wrote:
> It sounds like I should schedule a full agressive repack once. Once
> being the operative word.
>
> git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
This has been done and the repository is now down to 285M. I set the
number of pack.threads=2 and it ran for 104 minutes to completion.
(I had experimented letting it use all available 7-cores but that ran
94 minutes and ran out of memory at the 3G 32-bit limit. The progress
indicator took 15 minutes to get to 90% and then spent the next 80
minutes getting no further than 92%.)
> > Another option is to touch a <pack>.keep file for the largest pack so
> > that it is never touched again. New objects will then be added to a
> > separate pack even after git gc. If that large pack is already well
> > packed this should save some processing time.
>
> That seems like a useful additional tweak for a large stage such as
> this. If nothing else it will help out the backup since that file
> won't be changing on a routine basis and will remain static for the
> purposes of backup transfer. This could be applied to several of the
> large repositories.
>
> It seems that on the client side after a new clone that this tweak is
> not propagated. It seems that if there are multiple packs on the
> server side that they are combined into a single pack file. But
> without being repacked. Therefore downstream clients that wish this
> would need to do it manually after a clone.
I also touched the .keep file for the resulting pack file so that it
would remain static.
I checked out a local clone and the size was 329M.
Bob
P.S. I saw the other discussion thread talking about possibly redoing
the repository. If that happens let me know and I will repack just as
above again.
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, (continued)
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Andreas Schwab, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval,
Bob Proulx <=
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Achim Gratz, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Bob Proulx, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/12
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Angelo Graziosi, 2014/01/08
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/09
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Angelo Graziosi, 2014/01/07
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/07
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Antonio Nikishaev, 2014/01/10
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, David Kastrup, 2014/01/07
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/07