On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 06:48:54PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > And there are definitely a few nasty bits (like the way the progress is
> > ended). I'm not planning on taking this further for now, but maybe
> > you or somebody can find it interesting or useful.
>
> I think it would
Jeff King writes:
> That code isn't lib-ified enough to be run in process, but I think the
> patch below should give similar behavior to what fsck currently does.
> We'd need to tell index-pack to use our fsck.* config for its checks, I
> imagine. The progress here is still per-pack, but I think
On Sun, Sep 02 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 03:55:28AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> I still think the more interesting long-term thing here is to reuse the
>> pack verification from index-pack, which actually hashes as it does the
>> per-object countup.
>>
>> That code isn't
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 03:55:28AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> I still think the more interesting long-term thing here is to reuse the
> pack verification from index-pack, which actually hashes as it does the
> per-object countup.
>
> That code isn't lib-ified enough to be run in process, but I
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 03:46:57AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> Something like this, which chunks it there, uses a per-packfile meter
> (though still does not give any clue how many packfiles there are), and
> shows a throughput meter.
Actually, in typical cases it would not matter how many
On Sat, Sep 01, 2018 at 02:53:28PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> With this we'll get output like:
>
> $ ~/g/git/git -C ~/g/2015-04-03-1M-git/ --exec-path=$PWD fsck
> Checking object directories: 100% (256/256), done.
> Hashing: 100% (452634108/452634108), done.
>
On Sat, Sep 01 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 16 2018, Jeff King wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:54:25AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>
I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing
On Thu, Aug 16 2018, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16 2018, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:54:25AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>
>>> I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing some
>>> 5-object repository with many binary objects, but
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:13 AM Jeff King wrote:
> I _think_ they should work together OK without further modification.
> Once upon a time the caller had to say "don't show if we're past N%
> after M seconds", but I think with the current code we'd just show it if
> we're not completely finished
>>> Jeff King schrieb am 21.08.2018 um 03:07 in Nachricht
<20180821010712.ga32...@sigill.intra.peff.net>:
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
[...]
> So it really should just be a simple:
>
> progress = start_delayed_progress("Hashing packfile", 0);
>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:57:13AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > That seems to apply. BTW: Is there a way go get some repository statistics
> > like a histogram of object sizes (or whatever that might be useful to help
> > making decisions)?
>
> The git-sizer program is really
Hi!
Here are some stats from the repository. First the fast import ones (which had
good performance, but probably all cached, also):
% git fast-import <../git-stream
/usr/lib/git/git-fast-import statistics:
-
Alloc'd objects:
On Mon, Aug 20 2018, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Jeff King schrieb am 16.08.2018 um 22:55 in Nachricht
> <20180816205556.ga8...@sigill.intra.peff.net>:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:35:53PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>
>>> This is all interesting, but I think unrelated to what Ulrich
>>> Jeff King schrieb am 16.08.2018 um 22:55 in Nachricht
<20180816205556.ga8...@sigill.intra.peff.net>:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:35:53PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> This is all interesting, but I think unrelated to what Ulrich is talking
>> about. Quote:
>>
>> Between
>>> Duy Nguyen schrieb am 16.08.2018 um 17:18 in Nachricht
:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:10 PM Ulrich Windl
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing some
> 5-object repository with many binary objects, but most are rather small:
>>
>> Between
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:08 PM Jeff King wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:55:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
> > > * We spend the majority of the ~30s on this:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/git/git/blob/63749b2dea5d1501ff85bab7b8a7f64911d21dea/pack-check.c#L70-L79
> >
> > This is
Jeff King writes:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:57:14AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> The only way to solve that is to count bytes. We don't have a total byte
>> count in most cases, and it wouldn't always make sense (e.g., the
>> "Compressing objects" meter can show the same issue, but it's not
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 04:55:56PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > * We spend the majority of the ~30s on this:
> >
> > https://github.com/git/git/blob/63749b2dea5d1501ff85bab7b8a7f64911d21dea/pack-check.c#L70-L79
>
> This is hashing the actual packfile. This is potentially quite long,
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:35:53PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> This is all interesting, but I think unrelated to what Ulrich is talking
> about. Quote:
>
> Between the two phases of "git fsck" (checking directories and
> checking objects) there was a break of several seconds
On Thu, Aug 16 2018, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:54:25AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>
>> I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing some
>> 5-object repository with many binary objects, but most are rather
>> small:
>>
>> Between the two phases of
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 11:57:14AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> The only way to solve that is to count bytes. We don't have a total byte
> count in most cases, and it wouldn't always make sense (e.g., the
> "Compressing objects" meter can show the same issue, but it's not really
> putting through
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 05:18:51PM +0200, Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > During "git gc" the writing objects phase did not update for some
> > seconds, but then the percentage counter jumped like from 15% to
> > 42%.
> [...]
>
> Is it possible to make this repository public? You can also use "git
>
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 08:54:25AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing some
> 5-object repository with many binary objects, but most are rather
> small:
>
> Between the two phases of "git fsck" (checking directories and
> checking
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 1:10 PM Ulrich Windl
wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing some
> 5-object repository with many binary objects, but most are rather small:
>
> Between the two phases of "git fsck" (checking directories and checking
>
Hi!
I'd like to point out some minor issue observed while processing some
5-object repository with many binary objects, but most are rather small:
Between the two phases of "git fsck" (checking directories and checking
objects) there was a break of several seconds where no progress was
25 matches
Mail list logo
