On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 06:38 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > * 'git push'? > > This one is not affected by how deep your repo's history is, or how > wide your tree is, so should be quick.. > > Ah the number of refs may affect both git-push and git-pull. I think > Stefan knows better than I in this area.
I can tell you that this is a bit of a problem for us at Twitter. We have over 100k refs, which adds ~20MiB of downstream traffic to every push. I added a hack to improve this locally inside Twitter: The client sends a bloom filter of shas that it believes that the server knows about; the server sends only the sha of master and any refs that are not in the bloom filter. The client uses its local version of the servers' refs as if they had just been sent. This means that some packs will be suboptimal, due to false positives in the bloom filter leading some new refs to not be sent. Also, if there were a repack between the pull and the push, some refs might have been deleted on the server; we repack rarely enough and pull frequently enough that this is hopefully not an issue. We're still testing to see if this works. But due to the number of assumptions it makes, it's probably not that great an idea for general use. There are probably more complex schemes to compute minimal (or small-enough) packs; in particular, if the patch is just a few megs off of master, it's better to just send the whole pack. That doesn't work for us because we've got a log-based replication scheme that the pack appends to, and we don't want the log to get too big; we want more-minimal packs than that. But it might work for others. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
