On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 03:11:38PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > Yeah, I agree that deferring repeated gc's based on time is going to run > > into pathological corner cases. OTOH, what we've found at GitHub is that > > "gc --auto" is quite insufficient for scheduling maintenance anyway > > (e.g., if a machine gets pushes to 100 separate repositories in quick > > succession, you probably want to queue and throttle any associated gc). > > I'm sure you have better solutions for this at GitHub, but as an aside > it might be interesting to add some sort of gc flock + retry setting for > this use-case, i.e. even if you had 100 concurrent gc's due to > too_many_*(), they'd wait + retry until they could get the flock on a > given file. > > Then again this is probably too specific, and could be done with a > pre-auto-gc hook too.. Yeah, I think any multi-repo solution is getting way too specific for Git, and the best thing we can do is provide a hook. I agree you could probably do this today with a pre-auto-gc hook (if it skips gc it would just queue itself and return non-zero). Or even just make a mark in a database that says "there was some activity here". Since we have so much other infrastructure sitting between the user and Git anyway, we do that marking at a separate layer which is already talking to a database. ;) Anyway, I do agree with your general notion that this isn't the right approach for many situations, and auto-gc is a better solution for many cases. -Peff
