[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval
From: |
Achim Gratz |
Subject: |
Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Jan 2014 11:29:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) |
Bob Proulx writes:
> I have a couple of questions if someone already has the clone
> available for a test. Does a clone from the agressively repacked to
> 327M repository remain similarly compacted when cloned again from it?
Once the whole repository is repacked it keeps those pack decisions,
also across clones. The pack strategy for new commits would typically
be near-optimal unless someone fast-imported a large branch again (in
that case it should preferrably be locally repacked before getting
pushed to Savannah).
> If an agressively repacked repository is again repacked but this time
> without the --agressive option does the size stay around 327M or does
> it get expanded on the subsequent pass?
I don't think a plain gc will expand any old packs, in any case the
benefits of "git gc --agressive" are supposed to last for a long time.
>(Wondering if we can periodically run 'git gc --agressive' on the
>larger git repositories at a niced background task priority but not too
>often and still achieve a good benefit for the time between agressive
>repacks.)
Just a manual "git gc --aggressive" once in a while should be enough.
If you are going to do it as a cron-job, I'm not sure if it's a good
idea to nice it. I think you'd rather want to limit the number of
threads it uses, which also limits the memory footprint, which is
probably the bigger problem anyway and should probably be tuned further
depending on how beefy the server is.
Regards,
Achim.
--
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+
SD adaptations for Waldorf Q V3.00R3 and Q+ V3.54R2:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSDada
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, (continued)
- 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, 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, 2014/01/15
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval,
Achim Gratz <=
- 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
- Re: Move to git is imminent - awaiting Stefan's approval, Angelo Graziosi, 2014/01/07