On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:05:42PM -0500, David Turner wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 09:44 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Duy Nguyen <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > On second thought, perhaps gc.autoDetach should default to false if > > > there's no tty, since its main point it to stop breaking interactive > > > usage. That would make the server side happy (no tty there). > > > > Sounds like an idea, but wouldn't that keep the end-user coming over > > the network waiting after accepting a push until the GC completes, I > > wonder. If an impatient user disconnects, would that end up killing > > an ongoing GC? etc. > > Regardless, it's impolite to keep the user waiting. So, I think we > should just not write the "too many unreachable loose objects" message > if auto-gc is on. Does that sound OK?
I thought the point of that message was to prevent auto-gc from kicking in over and over again due to objects that won't actually get pruned. I wonder if you'd want to either bump the auto-gc object limit, or possibly reduce the gc.pruneExpire limit to keep this situation from coming up in the first place (or at least mitigating the amount of time it's the case). -Peff
