On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
On 02/20/2015 03:25 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri,
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes:
I actually ran this a few times while testing it, so this is a before
and after on a hot cache of linux.git with 406 tags v.s. ~140k. I ran
the gc + repack + bitmaps for
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:04 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes:
I actually ran this a few times while testing it, so this is a before
and after on a hot cache of linux.git with 406
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder how efficient rsync is for transferring these refs: the
client generates a file containing all refs, the server does the
same with their refs, then the client rsync their file to the server..
The changes between the
On 02/20/2015 03:25 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 12:59 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com writes:
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..
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally I work on a repo at work (where I'm mostly the Git guy) that's:
* Around 500k commits
* Around 100k tags
* Around 5k branches
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally I work on a repo at work (where I'm mostly the Git
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally I work on a repo at work (where I'm mostly the Git
David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com writes:
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
On 20.02.2015 01:03, brian m. carlson wrote:
If you want good performance, I'd recommend the latest version of Git
both client- and server-side. Newer versions of Git provide pack
bitmaps, which can dramatically speed up clones and fetches, and Git
Do you happen now which version, if at all,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes:
I actually ran this a few times while testing it, so this is a before
and after on a hot cache of linux.git with 406 tags v.s. ~140k. I ran
the gc + repack + bitmaps for both repos noted in an earlier reply of
mine, and took the fastest run out
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:08:55PM +0100, Sebastian Schuberth wrote:
On 20.02.2015 01:03, brian m. carlson wrote:
If you want good performance, I'd recommend the latest version of Git
both client- and server-side. Newer versions of Git provide pack
bitmaps, which can dramatically speed up
On Friday, February 20, 2015 01:29:12 PM David Turner wrote:
...
For a more general solution, perhaps a log of ref updates
could be used. Every time a ref is updated on the server,
that ref would be written into an append-only log. Every
time a client pulls, their pull data includes an index
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:42 AM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com wrote:
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
On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 13:37 -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
On Friday, February 20, 2015 01:29:12 PM David Turner wrote:
...
For a more general solution, perhaps a log of ref updates
could be used. Every time a ref is updated on the server,
that ref would be written into an append-only log.
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
But actually most of git fetch is spent in the reachability check
subsequently done by git-rev-list which takes several seconds. I
I wonder if reachability bitmap could help here..
I could have sworn I had that
This is fantastic. I really appreciate all the answers. And it's great
that I think I've sparked some general discussion that could lead
somewhere too.
Notes:
I'm currently using 2.1.3. I'll move to 2.3.x
I'm experimenting with git-annex to reduce repo size on disk. We'll see.
I could remove
Stephen Morton stephen.c.mor...@gmail.com writes:
1. Ævar : I'm a bit concerned by your statement that git rebases take
about 1-2 s per commit. Does that mean that a git pull --rebase, if
it is picking up say 120 commits (not at all unrealistic), could
potentially take 4 minutes to complete?
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:06:44AM -0500, Stephen Morton wrote:
2. I'd not heard about bitmap indexes before this thread but it sounds
like they should help me. In limited searching I can't find much
useful documentation about them. It is also not clear to me if I have
to explicitly run git
On 20.02.2015 15:25, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
tl;dr: After some more testing it turns out the performance issues we
have are almost entirely due to the number of refs. Some of these I
Interesting. We currently have similar performance issues when pushing
to a Git repo hosted on Gerrit.
On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 23:57 -0700, Martin Fick wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015 5:42 PM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com wrote:
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
-Original Message-
On Feb 20, 2015 1:58AM Martin Fick wrote:
On Feb 19, 2015 5:42 PM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com wrote:
This one is not affected by how deep your repo's history is, or how
wide your tree is, so should be quick..
Good to hear that others are starting to
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Morton
stephen.c.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted this to comp.version-control.git.user and didn't get any response. I
think the question is plumbing-related enough that I can ask it here.
I'm evaluating the feasibility of moving my team from SVN to
On Feb 19, 2015 5:42 PM, David Turner dtur...@twopensource.com wrote:
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
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Stefan Beller sbel...@google.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Stephen Morton
stephen.c.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted this to comp.version-control.git.user and didn't get any response. I
think the question is plumbing-related enough that I can ask
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:26:58PM -0500, Stephen Morton wrote:
I posted this to comp.version-control.git.user and didn't get any response. I
think the question is plumbing-related enough that I can ask it here.
I'm evaluating the feasibility of moving my team from SVN to git. We have a
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Stephen Morton
stephen.c.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
I posted this to comp.version-control.git.user and didn't get any response. I
think the question is plumbing-related enough that I can ask it here.
I'm evaluating the feasibility of moving my team from SVN to
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
ava...@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally I work on a repo at work (where I'm mostly the Git guy) that's:
* Around 500k commits
* Around 100k tags
* Around 5k branches
* Around 500 commits/day, almost entirely to the same branch
* 1.5
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Stephen Morton
stephen.c.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I addressed most of this in my original post with the paragraph
Assume ridiculous numbers. Let me exaggerate: say 1 million commits,
15 GB repo,
50k tags, 1,000 branches. (Due to historical code
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Stephen Morton
stephen.c.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
By 'performance', I guess I mean speed of day to day operations for devs.
* (Obviously, trivially, a (non-local) clone will be slow with a large
repo.)
* Will a few simultaneous clones from the central
31 matches
Mail list logo
