Hi Phil, On 2007-03-07 13:40:12, Phil Endecott wrote: > Hi Anders, > > > The git repository can actually be very efficiently compressed; with my > > copy of the git Linux kernel repository, 'n' is only about 1.5 (so it's > > even less than svn that weighs in at about 2.0!) in spite of the fact that > > it contains _all_ changes made to that rather largish project since april > > 2005. > > > > Numbers: > > - the kernel source tree currently occupies 374MiB (without git) > > - the underlying .git repositiory occupies 187MiB (!) > > Very interesting numbers, thanks for posting them. > > But... maybe you have object files (etc.) in some of those > directories? In my case, the kernel source tree (from a tar file) > occupies 275M while the source+objects working copy takes nearly twice that.
Yes, I've noticed that too, but I don't have an explanation ready (my directory tree was clean). > I was thinking mostly of the directfb.org bandwidth bill when I made my > comment. I don't want Denis to get a nasty surprise! If it is only > 1.5x we don't need to worry. There is a catch, though - git stores patches as individual files, which may consume much more disk space (due to directory sizes, disk block consumption etc.) You have to _manually_ tell git to 're-pack' those patch-objects into larger chunks to conserve space (can be scripted, of course). Also, I'm afraid I do not have any numbers as to the actual bandwidth used to push or pull the patches (which really would be more interesting) other than the fact that they are transmitted in compressed form. Cheers Anders _______________________________________________ directfb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.directfb.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/directfb-dev
