On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:44:00PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > Sylvain Beucler wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:30:13PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > >> Sylvain Beucler wrote: > >> > Do you know about concurrency? I.e. need we make the repo read-only > >> > for developers when we're doing such a repack? > >> > >> >From what I recall, that's not necessary. > >> I think (probably a gross simplification) it creates a big pack of > >> whatever's on hand, and then flips a ref (atomic rename) to make the new > >> pack's objects live, and then removes the packed (and now logically > >> unlinked) objects at its leisure. Any new objects that came in while > >> packing are simply not packed. > > > > I guess I'll try on a copy of the Gnash repo. > > > > It seems there's some kind of special condition in that project > > though, I don't get nearly the same ratio on my projects (admittedly > > not nearly as active either :)). > > Those numbers are typical of a large project that's been converted from > e.g., cvs, and whose repository has never been properly compressed.
I committed during various phases of the 'gc' (counting, compressing, writing), all the commits were kept, just not packed. I'll optimize the real gnash.git right now - lots of b/w saved :) Speaking of git, there are messages from cvs2git piling up in the mail system, due to no alias defined for cvs2git, which is now done. I think you disabled the emacs cvs->git repo but not the cron. -- Sylvain
