Thanks for the suggestions.
Definitely will evaluate them as well.
On Tuesday, April 5, 2016 at 8:21:08 AM UTC-4, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 13:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
> > Thanks for the post Konstantin.
> > There won't be many concurrent users (say 10) hence not many cloning
> > at the same time.
> > My main requirement was using git as some type of storage space with
> > versioning capability.
> Well, Git is optimized for handling small-to-middle-sized files and
> assumes they don't change a lot between commits (this would be
> understandable once you consider the user case it was created --
> and tailored -- for: working on the Linux kernel source code).
> The Git's capability of "diffing" (comparing in a human-sensible way)
> of the contents of files recorded in different commits also relies
> on these files being textual, where "textual" means some 8-bit encoding
> (typically UTF-8 but various ISO-* and Windows-* encodings would work
> as well).
> So, while Git is able to work with large files, and it's able to work
> with binary files (including files containing text in weird encodings
> such as UTF-16/UCS-2 etc) these are not the things it's optimized for
> and you might find yourself dancing around Git trying to do it things
> with your data which you intended to get "for free".
> What I'm actually leading you to, is that it might turn out you might
> not really need a full-blown version-control system because inherently
> those are typically tailored for working on source code and other "plain
> text" stuff. Hence you might consider light-weight solutions intended
> for versioned backups. I suggest looking at rdiff-backup, attic and
> obnam -- to name just a few. All these systems allow you to
> periodically "push" a new state of a filesystem hierarchy rooted in a
> directory to "a server" (which might reside on a local machine), which
> would effectively store this new snapshot using various
> deduplication/delta compression techniques, allow to inspect the list
> of "revisions" and extract files from any selected revision.
> A "winning" feature compared to Git is that they in most cases allow
> to prune past revisions -- which might or might not be useful for your
> use case.
> All-in-all, if all you're concerned with is disk storage then Git is
> relatively OK with it -- provided your data does not change too much
> between adjacent commits (obviously, if you store 100MB worth of data
> in a commit and then store 100MB of completely different data in the
> next commit, that second commit won't be well-compressible compared to
> the previous one and you'll end up with some 200MB of data in the
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git
for human beings" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.