Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-19 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote: size time old aggr. 36MB 5m51 new aggr. 37MB 6m13 repack -adf 48MB 1m12 I am not clear on what these times mean. It looks like the new code is slower _and_ bigger. Can you explain them? That's right

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-19 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Stefan Beller stefanbel...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe we should introduce another option --pack-for-archive which features the characteristics of the old --aggressive. And the new --aggressive would be a tradeoff between space and time? Thinking further we could

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-18 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote: But I think it's orthogonal to gc --aggressive improvement. There's another reason that improving gc may be a good idea (or not). It depends on how other git implementations handle long delta chains. If they hate long delta

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-18 Thread David Kastrup
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:00:48PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-18 Thread David Kastrup
Jeff King p...@peff.net writes: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:50:50AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings --depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-18 Thread David Kastrup
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com wrote: But I think it's orthogonal to gc --aggressive improvement. There's another reason that improving gc may be a good idea (or not). It depends on how other git implementations handle long

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes: As explained in the previous commit,... [PATCH 3/4] becomes a commit with an empty log message for some reason. Have you tried running am -s on it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes: As explained in the previous commit,... [PATCH 3/4] becomes a commit with an empty log message for some reason. Have you tried running am -s on it? am -s worked fine. am

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Junio C Hamano
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:12 AM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes: As explained in the previous commit,... [PATCH 3/4] becomes a commit with an empty log message for some reason. Have you tried

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Jeff King
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings --depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access significantly. Notice that people usually work on recent history only, we could keep recent history

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings --depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access significantly. Notice that people

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:50:50AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings --depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access significantly. Notice that people

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Jeff King
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:00:48PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote: On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 08:35:04PM +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings --depth=250 --window=250

Re: [PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-17 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Jeff King p...@peff.net wrote: [before] real0m28.824s user0m28.620s sys 0m0.232s [after] real0m21.694s user0m21.544s sys 0m0.172s The numbers below are completely pulled out of a hat, so we can perhaps do even

[PATCH 4/4] gc --aggressive: three phase repacking

2014-03-16 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
As explained in the previous commit, current aggressive settings --depth=250 --window=250 could slow down repository access significantly. Notice that people usually work on recent history only, we could keep recent history more loosely packed, so that repo access is fast most of the time while