Git and GCC

Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
later, it finished.
The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
just trunk.

dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
total 1568899
-r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
-r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx

This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
repacking every so often.
The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones

I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could
use to make it smaller.

I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may
even be usable!

But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get
any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any
advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc.

I already have two way sync with hg.
Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer,
or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it
again.
For now, it seems a net loss.

--Dan
>
> git clone --depth 100 git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
>
> should give around ~50mb repository with usable trunk. This is all thanks to
> Bernardo Innocenti for setting up an up-to-date gcc git repo.
>
> P.S:Please cut down on the usage of exclamation mark.
>
> Regards,
> ismail
>
> --
> Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.
>

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

For the record:

 dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo$ git --version
git version 1.5.3.7

(I downloaded it yesterday when i started the import)

On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> later, it finished.
> The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> just trunk.
>
> dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
> total 1568899
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx
>
> This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
> repacking every so often.
> The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones
>
> I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could
> use to make it smaller.
>
> I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may
> even be usable!
>
> But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get
> any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any
> advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc.
>
> I already have two way sync with hg.
> Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer,
> or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it
> again.
> For now, it seems a net loss.
>
> --Dan
> >
> > git clone --depth 100 git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
> >
> > should give around ~50mb repository with usable trunk. This is all thanks to
> > Bernardo Innocenti for setting up an up-to-date gcc git repo.
> >
> > P.S:Please cut down on the usage of exclamation mark.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ismail
> >
> > --
> > Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.
> >
>

Re: Git and GCC

[NightStrike]

On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> I already have two way sync with hg.
> Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer,
> or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it
> again.

Sorry, what is hg?

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> > I already have two way sync with hg.
> > Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer,
> > or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it
> > again.
>
> Sorry, what is hg?
>
http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/

Re: Git and GCC

[Ismail Dönmez]

Wednesday 05 December 2007 21:08:41 Daniel Berlin yazmıştı:
> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> later, it finished.
> The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> just trunk.
>
> dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
> total 1568899
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx
>
> This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
> repacking every so often.
> The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones

I think this (gcc HG repo) is very good but only problem is its not always in 
sync with SVN, it would really rock if a post svn commit hook would sync hg 
repo.

Thanks for doing this anyhow.

Regards,
ismail

-- 
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.

Re: Git and GCC

[Ollie Wild]

On Dec 5, 2007 11:08 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> later, it finished.
> The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> just trunk.

Out of curiosity, how much of that is the .git/svn directory?  This is
where git-svn-specific data is stored.  It is *very* inefficient, at
least for the 1.5.2.5 version I'm using.

Ollie

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, Ollie Wild <aaw@google.com> wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2007 11:08 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> > So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> > repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> > The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> > After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> > later, it finished.
> > The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> > just trunk.
>
> Out of curiosity, how much of that is the .git/svn directory?  This is
> where git-svn-specific data is stored.  It is *very* inefficient, at
> least for the 1.5.2.5 version I'm using.
>

I was only counting the space in .the packs dir.

> Ollie
>

Re: Git and GCC

[Ollie Wild]

On Dec 5, 2007 1:40 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
>
> > Out of curiosity, how much of that is the .git/svn directory?  This is
> > where git-svn-specific data is stored.  It is *very* inefficient, at
> > least for the 1.5.2.5 version I'm using.
> >
>
> I was only counting the space in .the packs dir.

In my personal client, which includes the entire history of GCC, the
packs dir is only 652MB.

Obviouisly, you're not a big fan of Git, and you're entitled to your
opinion.  I, however, find it very useful.  Given a choice between Git
and Mercurial, I choose git, but only because I have prior experience
working with the Linux kernel.  From what I've heard, both do the job
reasonably well.

Thanks to git-svn, using Git to develop GCC is practical with or
without explicit support from the GCC maintainers.  As I see it, the
main barrier is the inordinate amount of time it takes to bring up a
repository from scratch.  As has already been noted, Harvey has
provided a read-only copy, but it (a) only allows access to a subset
of GCC's branches and (b) doesn't provide a mechanism for developers
to push changes directly via git-svn.

This sounds like a homework project.  I'll do some investigation and
see if I can come up with a good bootstrap process.

Ollie

Re: Git and GCC

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

Daniel> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
Daniel> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of
Daniel> yesterday) The git-svn import was done using repacks every
Daniel> 1000 revisions.  After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive
Daniel> --prune.  Two hours later, it finished.  The final size after
Daniel> this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for just trunk.

Most of the space is probably taken by the SVN specific data. To get
an idea of how GIT would handle GCC data, you should clone the GIT
directory or checkout one from infradead.org:

  % git clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git

On my machine, it takes 856M with a checkout copy of trunk and
contains the trunk, autovect, fixed-point, 4.1 and 4.2 branches. In
comparaison, my checked out copy of trunk using SVN requires 1.2G, and
I don't have any history around...

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
> Daniel> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> Daniel> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of
> Daniel> yesterday) The git-svn import was done using repacks every
> Daniel> 1000 revisions.  After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive
> Daniel> --prune.  Two hours later, it finished.  The final size after
> Daniel> this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for just trunk.
>
> Most of the space is probably taken by the SVN specific data.

I showed a du of the pack directory.
Everyone tells me that svn specfic data is in .svn, so i am
disinclined to believe this.

Also, given that hg can store the svn data without this kind of
penalty, it's just another strike against git.


>  To get
> an idea of how GIT would handle GCC data, you should clone the GIT
> directory or checkout one from infradead.org:
Does infradead have the entire history?

>   % git clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
>
> On my machine, it takes 856M with a checkout copy of trunk and
> contains the trunk, autovect, fixed-point, 4.1 and 4.2 branches. In
> comparaison, my checked out copy of trunk using SVN requires 1.2G, and
> I don't have any history around...

This is about git's usability and space usage, not SVN.
People say we should consider GIT. I have been considering GIT and hg,
and right now, GIT looks like a massive loser in every respect.
It's harder to use.
It takes up more space than hg to store the same data.
It requires manual repacking
it's diff/etc commands are not any faster.

Humorously, i tried to verify whether infradead has full history or
not, but of course git log git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git says
"fatal, not a git repository".
(though git clone is happy to clone it, because it is a git repository).
I'm sure there is some magic option or command line i need to use to
view remote log history without cloning the repository.
But all the other systems we look at don't require this kind of
bullshit to actually get things done.

As I said, maybe i'll look at git in another year or so.
But  i'm certainly going to ignore all the "git is so great, we should
move gcc to it" people until it works better, while i am much more
inclined to believe the "hg is so great, we should move gc to it"
people.

Re: Git and GCC

[NightStrike]

On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> As I said, maybe i'll look at git in another year or so.
> But  i'm certainly going to ignore all the "git is so great, we should
> move gcc to it" people until it works better, while i am much more
> inclined to believe the "hg is so great, we should move gc to it"
> people.

Just out of curiosity, is there something wrong with the current
choice of svn?  As I recall, it wasn't too long ago that gcc converted
from cvs to svn.  What's the motivation to change again?  (I'm not
trying to oppose anything.. I'm just curious, as I don't know much
about this kind of thing).

Re: Git and GCC

[Ian Lance Taylor]

NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> writes:

> On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> > As I said, maybe i'll look at git in another year or so.
> > But  i'm certainly going to ignore all the "git is so great, we should
> > move gcc to it" people until it works better, while i am much more
> > inclined to believe the "hg is so great, we should move gc to it"
> > people.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, is there something wrong with the current
> choice of svn?  As I recall, it wasn't too long ago that gcc converted
> from cvs to svn.  What's the motivation to change again?  (I'm not
> trying to oppose anything.. I'm just curious, as I don't know much
> about this kind of thing).

Distributed version systems like git or Mercurial have some advantages
over Subversion.  For example, it is easy for developers to produce
patches which can be reliably committed or exchanged with other
developers.  With Subversion, we send around patch files generated by
diff and applied with patch.  This works, but is inconvenient, and
there is no way to track them.

With regard to git, I think it's worth noting that it was initially
designed to solve the problems faced by one man, Linus Torvalds.  The
problems he faces are not the problems which gcc developers face.  Our
development process is not the Linux kernel development process.  Of
course, many people have worked on git, and I expect that git can do
what we need.


For any git proponents, I'm curious to hear what advantages it offers
over Mercurial.  From this thread, one advantage of Mercurial seems
clear: it is easier to understand how to use it correctly.

Ian

Re: Git and GCC

[Vincent Lefevre]

On 2007-12-06 10:15:17 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> Distributed version systems like git or Mercurial have some advantages
> over Subversion.

It's surprising that you don't mention svk, which is based on top
of Subversion[*]. Has anyone tried? Is there any problem with it?

[*] You have currently an obvious advantage here.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Re: Git and GCC

[Ismail Dönmez]

Thursday 06 December 2007 21:28:59 Vincent Lefevre yazmıştı:
> On 2007-12-06 10:15:17 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Distributed version systems like git or Mercurial have some advantages
> > over Subversion.
>
> It's surprising that you don't mention svk, which is based on top
> of Subversion[*]. Has anyone tried? Is there any problem with it?
>
> [*] You have currently an obvious advantage here.

Last time I tried SVK it was slow and buggy. I wouldn't recommend it.

/ismail

-- 
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.

Re: Git and GCC

[Andrey Belevantsev]

Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> It's surprising that you don't mention svk, which is based on top
> of Subversion[*]. Has anyone tried? Is there any problem with it?
I must agree with Ismail's reply here.  We have used svk for our 
internal development for about two years, for the reason of easy 
mirroring of gcc trunk and branching from it locally.  I would not 
complain about its speed, but sometimes we had problems with merge from 
trunk, ending up with e.g. zero-sized files in our branch which were 
removed from trunk, or we even couldn't merge at all, and I had to 
resort to underlying subversion repository for merging.  As a result, 
we're currently migrating to mercurial.

Andrey

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/6/07, Andrey Belevantsev <abel@ispras.ru> wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > It's surprising that you don't mention svk, which is based on top
> > of Subversion[*]. Has anyone tried? Is there any problem with it?
> I must agree with Ismail's reply here.  We have used svk for our
> internal development for about two years, for the reason of easy
> mirroring of gcc trunk and branching from it locally.  I would not
> complain about its speed, but sometimes we had problems with merge from
> trunk, ending up with e.g. zero-sized files in our branch which were
> removed from trunk, or we even couldn't merge at all, and I had to
> resort to underlying subversion repository for merging.  As a result,
> we're currently migrating to mercurial.

I would not recommend SVK either (even being an SVN committer). While
i love the SVK guys to death, it's just not the way to go if you want
a distributed system.

>
> Andrey
>

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> 
> Daniel> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> Daniel> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of
> Daniel> yesterday) The git-svn import was done using repacks every
> Daniel> 1000 revisions.  After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive
> Daniel> --prune.  Two hours later, it finished.  The final size after
> Daniel> this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for just trunk.
> 
> Most of the space is probably taken by the SVN specific data. To get
> an idea of how GIT would handle GCC data, you should clone the GIT
> directory or checkout one from infradead.org:
> 
>   % git clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
> 

Actually I went through and created the basis for that repo.  It
contains all branches and tags in the gcc svn repo and the final
pack comes to about 600M.  This has _everything_, not just trunk.

For the first time after doing such an import, I found it much better
to do git repack -a -f --depth=100 --window=100.  After that initial
repack a plain git-gc occasionally will be just fine.

If you want any more information about this, let me know.

CHeers,

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Andreas Schwab]

Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>> 
>> Daniel> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
>> Daniel> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of
>> Daniel> yesterday) The git-svn import was done using repacks every
>> Daniel> 1000 revisions.  After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive
>> Daniel> --prune.  Two hours later, it finished.  The final size after
>> Daniel> this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for just trunk.
>> 
>> Most of the space is probably taken by the SVN specific data. To get
>> an idea of how GIT would handle GCC data, you should clone the GIT
>> directory or checkout one from infradead.org:
>> 
>>   % git clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
>> 
>
> Actually I went through and created the basis for that repo.  It
> contains all branches and tags in the gcc svn repo and the final
> pack comes to about 600M.  This has _everything_, not just trunk.

Not everything.  Only trunk and a few selected branches, and no tags.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:34 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> Daniel> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> >> Daniel> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of
> >> Daniel> yesterday) The git-svn import was done using repacks every
> >> Daniel> 1000 revisions.  After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive
> >> Daniel> --prune.  Two hours later, it finished.  The final size after
> >> Daniel> this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for just trunk.
> >> 
> >> Most of the space is probably taken by the SVN specific data. To get
> >> an idea of how GIT would handle GCC data, you should clone the GIT
> >> directory or checkout one from infradead.org:
> >> 
> >>   % git clone git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
> >> 
> >
> > Actually I went through and created the basis for that repo.  It
> > contains all branches and tags in the gcc svn repo and the final
> > pack comes to about 600M.  This has _everything_, not just trunk.
> 
> Not everything.  Only trunk and a few selected branches, and no tags.
> 

Yes, everything, by default you only get the more modern branches/tags,
but it's all in there.  If there is interest I can work with Bernardo
and get the rest publically exposed.

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Rafael Espindola]

> Yes, everything, by default you only get the more modern branches/tags,
> but it's all in there.  If there is interest I can work with Bernardo
> and get the rest publically exposed.

I decided to give it a try, but could not find the tuples branch. Is
it too hard to make gimple-tuples-branch and lto visible?

> Harvey
>
>

Thanks a lot,
-- 
Rafael Avila de Espindola

Google Ireland Ltd.
Gordon House
Barrow Street
Dublin 4
Ireland

Registered in Dublin, Ireland
Registration Number: 368047

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 14:40 +0000, Rafael Espindola wrote:
> > Yes, everything, by default you only get the more modern branches/tags,
> > but it's all in there.  If there is interest I can work with Bernardo
> > and get the rest publically exposed.
> 
> I decided to give it a try, but could not find the tuples branch. Is
> it too hard to make gimple-tuples-branch and lto visible?
> 

Here's a suggestion I sent to the git list, it's a bit loner than it
needs to be, but I think you'll understand a lot better what's going
on this way.:

After the discussions lately regarding the gcc svn mirror.  I'm coming
up with a recipe to set up your own git-svn mirror.  Suggestions on the
following.

// Create directory and initialize git
mkdir gcc
cd gcc
git init
// add the remote site that currently mirrors gcc
// I have chosen the name gcc.gnu.org *1* as my local name to refer to
// this choose something else if you like
git remote add gcc.gnu.org git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
// fetching someone else's remote branches is not a standard thing to do
// so we'll need to edit our .git/config file
// you should have a section that looks like:
[remote "gcc.gnu.org"]
        url = git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
        fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*
// infradead's mirror puts the gcc svn branches in its own namespace
// refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*
// change our fetch line accordingly
[remote "gcc.gnu.org"]
        url = git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
        fetch = +refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*
// fetch the remote data from the mirror site
git remote update
// set up git-svn
// gcc has the standard trunk/branches/tags naming so use -s
// add a prefix so git-svn uses the metadata we just got from the
// mirror so we don't have to get everything from the svn server
// the --prefix must match whatever you chose in *1*, the trailing
// slash is important.
git svn init -s --prefix=gcc.gnu.org/ svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
// your config should look like this now:
[core]
        repositoryformatversion = 0
        filemode = true
        bare = false
        logallrefupdates = true
[remote "gccmirror"]
        url = git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
        fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/gccmirror/*
[svn-remote "svn"]
        url = svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc
        fetch = trunk:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/trunk
        branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*
        tags = tags/*:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/tags/*
// Try and get more revisions from the svn server
// this may take a little while the first time as git-svn builds
// metadata to allow bi-directional operation
// Note: git-svn has a patch in testing to use a _vastly_ more
// space efficient mapping from svn rev to git sha, I'd
// suggest you get it.
//
// This will rebuild the mapping for every svn branch
git svn fetch
// If you only care about one branch
// Check out a local copy of the tuples branch and switch
// to it
git checkout -b tuples remotes/gcc.gnu.org/tuples
// Update the git-svn metadata
git svn rebase

Hope that helps to get you started.

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:08:41 -0500

> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> later, it finished.
> The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> just trunk.
> 
> dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
> total 1568899
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx
> 
> This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
> repacking every so often.
> The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones
> 
> I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could
> use to make it smaller.
> 
> I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may
> even be usable!
> 
> But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get
> any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any
> advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc.

I would really appreciate it if you would share experiences
like this with the GIT community, who have been now CC:'d.

That's the only way this situation is going to improve.

When you don't CC: the people who can fix the problem, I can only
speculate that perhaps at least subconsciously you don't care if
the situation improves or not.

The OpenSolaris folks behaved similarly, and that really ticked me
off.

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 14:08:41 -0500
>
> > So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> > repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> > The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> > After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> > later, it finished.
> > The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> > just trunk.
> >
> > dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
> > total 1568899
> > -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
> > pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
> > -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
> > pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx
> >
> > This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
> > repacking every so often.
> > The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones
> >
> > I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could
> > use to make it smaller.
> >
> > I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may
> > even be usable!
> >
> > But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get
> > any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any
> > advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc.
>
> I would really appreciate it if you would share experiences
> like this with the GIT community, who have been now CC:'d.
>
> That's the only way this situation is going to improve.
>
> When you don't CC: the people who can fix the problem, I can only
> speculate that perhaps at least subconsciously you don't care if
> the situation improves or not.
>
I didn't cc the git community for three reasons

1. It's not the nicest message in the world, and thus, more likely to
get bad responses than constructive ones.

2. Based on the level of usability, I simply assume it is too young
for regular developers to use.  At least, I hope this is the case.

3. People i know have had bad experiences talking usability issues
with the git community in the past.  I am not likely to fare any
better, so I would rather have someone who is involved with both our
community and theirs, raise these issues, rather than a complete
newcomer.

But hey, whatever floats your boat :)

It is true I gave up quickly, but this is mainly because i don't like
to fight with my tools.
I am quite fine with a distributed workflow, I now use 8 or so gcc
branches in mercurial (auto synced from svn) and merge a lot between
them. I wanted to see if git would sanely let me manage the commits
back to svn.  After fighting with it, i gave up and just wrote a
python extension to hg that lets me commit non-svn changesets back to
svn directly from hg.

--Dan

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:41:19 -0500

> It is true I gave up quickly, but this is mainly because i don't like
> to fight with my tools.
> I am quite fine with a distributed workflow, I now use 8 or so gcc
> branches in mercurial (auto synced from svn) and merge a lot between
> them. I wanted to see if git would sanely let me manage the commits
> back to svn.  After fighting with it, i gave up and just wrote a
> python extension to hg that lets me commit non-svn changesets back to
> svn directly from hg.

I find it ironic that you were even willing to write tools to
facilitate your hg based gcc workflow.  That really shows what your
thinking is on this matter, in that you're willing to put effort
towards making hg work better for you but you're not willing to expend
that level of effort to see if git can do so as well.

This is what really eats me from the inside about your dissatisfaction
with git.  Your analysis seems to be a self-fullfilling prophecy, and
that's totally unfair to both hg and git.

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:41:19 -0500
>
> > It is true I gave up quickly, but this is mainly because i don't like
> > to fight with my tools.
> > I am quite fine with a distributed workflow, I now use 8 or so gcc
> > branches in mercurial (auto synced from svn) and merge a lot between
> > them. I wanted to see if git would sanely let me manage the commits
> > back to svn.  After fighting with it, i gave up and just wrote a
> > python extension to hg that lets me commit non-svn changesets back to
> > svn directly from hg.
>
> I find it ironic that you were even willing to write tools to
> facilitate your hg based gcc workflow.
Why?

> That really shows what your
> thinking is on this matter, in that you're willing to put effort
> towards making hg work better for you but you're not willing to expend
> that level of effort to see if git can do so as well.
See, now you claim to know my thinking.
I went back to hg because the GIT's space usage wasn't even in the
ballpark, i couldn't get git-svn rebase to update the revs after the
initial import (even though i had properly used a rewriteRoot).

The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.

I spent a long time working on SVN to reduce it's space usage (repo
side and cleaning up the client side and giving a path to svn devs to
reduce it further), as well as ui issues, and I really don't feel like
having to do the same for GIT.

I'm tired of having to spend a large amount of effort to get my tools
to work.  If the community wants to find and fix the problem, i've
already said repeatedly i'll happily give over my repo, data,
whatever.  You are correct i am not going to spend even more effort
when i can be productive with something else much quicker.  The devil
i know (committing to svn) is better than the devil i don't (diving
into git source code and finding/fixing what is causing this space
blowup).
The python extension took me a few hours (< 4).
In git, i spent these hours waiting for git-gc to finish.

> This is what really eats me from the inside about your dissatisfaction
> with git.  Your analysis seems to be a self-fullfilling prophecy, and
> that's totally unfair to both hg and git.
Oh?
You seem to be taking this awfully personally.
I came into this completely open minded. Really, I did (i'm sure
you'll claim otherwise).
GIT people told me it would work great and i'd have a really small git
repo and be able to commit back to svn.
I tried it.
It didn't work out.
It doesn't seem to be usable for whatever reason.
I'm happy to give details, data, whatever.

I made the engineering decision that my effort would be better spent
doing something I knew i could do quickly (make hg commit back to svn
for my purposes) then trying to improve larger issues in GIT (UI and
space usage).  That took me a few hours, and I was happy again.

I would have been incredibly happy to have git just have come up with
a 400 meg gcc repository, and to be happily committing away from
git-svn to gcc's repository  ...
But it didn't happen.
So far, you have yet to actually do anything but incorrectly tell me
what I am thinking.

I'll probably try again in 6 months, and maybe it will be better.

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500

> The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.

And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
and yes those are including all of the repository history and branches
not just the trunk.

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:20 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500
> 
> > The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.
> 
> And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
> and yes those are including all of the repository history and branches
> not just the trunk.

David, I think it is actually a bug in git gc with the --aggressive
option...mind you, even if he solves that the format git svn uses
for its bi-directional metadata is so space-inefficient Daniel will
be crying for other reasons immediately afterwards...4MB for every
branch and tag in gcc svn (more than a few thousand).

You only need it around for any branches you are planning on committing
to but it is all created during the default git svn import.

FYI

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500
>
> > The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.
>
> And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
> and yes those are including all of the repository history and branches
> not just the trunk.
I followed the instructions in the tutorials.
I followed the instructions given to by people who created these.
I came up with a 1.5 gig pack file.
You want to help, or you want to argue with me.
Right now it sounds like you are trying to blame me or make it look
like i did something wrong.

You are of course, welcome to try it yourself.
I can give you the absolute exactly commands I gave, and with git
1.5.3.7, it will give you a 1.5 gig pack file.

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:32:52 -0500

> On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500
> >
> > > The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.
> >
> > And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
> > and yes those are including all of the repository history and branches
> > not just the trunk.
> I followed the instructions in the tutorials.
> I followed the instructions given to by people who created these.
> I came up with a 1.5 gig pack file.
> You want to help, or you want to argue with me.

Several people replied in this thread showing what options can lead to
smaller pack files.

They also listed what the GIT limitations are that would effect the
kind of work you are doing, which seemed to mostly deal with the high
space cost of branching and tags when converting to/from SVN repos.

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:32:52 -0500
>
> > On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> > > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500
> > >
> > > > The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.
> > >
> > > And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
> > > and yes those are including all of the repository history and branches
> > > not just the trunk.
> > I followed the instructions in the tutorials.
> > I followed the instructions given to by people who created these.
> > I came up with a 1.5 gig pack file.
> > You want to help, or you want to argue with me.
>
> Several people replied in this thread showing what options can lead to
> smaller pack files.

Actually, one person did, but that's okay, let's assume it was several.
I am currently trying Harvey's options.

I asked about using the pre-existing repos so i didn't have to do
this, but they were all
1. Done using read-only imports or
2. Don't contain full history
(IE the one that contains full history that is often posted here was
done as a read only import and thus doesn't have the metadata).

> They also listed what the GIT limitations are that would effect the
> kind of work you are doing, which seemed to mostly deal with the high
> space cost of branching and tags when converting to/from SVN repos.

Actually, it turns out that git-gc --aggressive does this dumb thing
to pack files sometimes regardless of whether you converted from an
SVN repo or not.

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:11 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:32:52 -0500
> >
> > > On 12/5/07, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> > > > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500
> > > >
> > > > > The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.
> > > >
> > > > And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
> > > > and yes those are including all of the repository history and branches
> > > > not just the trunk.
> > > I followed the instructions in the tutorials.
> > > I followed the instructions given to by people who created these.
> > > I came up with a 1.5 gig pack file.
> > > You want to help, or you want to argue with me.
> >
> > Several people replied in this thread showing what options can lead to
> > smaller pack files.
> 
> Actually, one person did, but that's okay, let's assume it was several.
> I am currently trying Harvey's options.
> 
> I asked about using the pre-existing repos so i didn't have to do
> this, but they were all
> 1. Done using read-only imports or
> 2. Don't contain full history
> (IE the one that contains full history that is often posted here was
> done as a read only import and thus doesn't have the metadata).

While you won't get the git svn metadata if you clone the infradead
repo, it can be recreated on the fly by git svn if you want to start
commiting directly to gcc svn.

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

> While you won't get the git svn metadata if you clone the infradead
> repo, it can be recreated on the fly by git svn if you want to start
> commiting directly to gcc svn.
>
I will give this a try :)

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> > While you won't get the git svn metadata if you clone the infradead
> > repo, it can be recreated on the fly by git svn if you want to start
> > commiting directly to gcc svn.
> >
> I will give this a try :)

Back when I was working on the Mozilla repository we were able to
convert the full 4GB CVS repository complete with all history into a
450MB pack file. That work is where the git-fastimport tool came from.
But it took a month of messing with the import tools to achieve this
and Mozilla still chose another VCS (mainly because of poor Windows
support in git).

Like Linus says, this type of command will yield the smallest pack file:
 git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250

I do agree that importing multi-gigabyte repositories is not a daily
occurrence nor a turn-key operation. There are significant issues when
translating from one VCS to another. The lack of global branch
tracking in CVS causes extreme problems on import. Hand editing of CVS
files also caused endless trouble.

The key to converting repositories of this size is RAM. 4GB minimum,
more would be better. git-repack is not multi-threaded. There were a
few attempts at making it multi-threaded but none were too successful.
If I remember right, with loads of RAM, a repack on a 450MB repository
was taking about five hours on a 2.8Ghz Core2. But this is something
you only have to do once for the import. Later repacks will reuse the
original deltas.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:47:54AM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:

> The key to converting repositories of this size is RAM. 4GB minimum,
> more would be better. git-repack is not multi-threaded. There were a
> few attempts at making it multi-threaded but none were too successful.
> If I remember right, with loads of RAM, a repack on a 450MB repository
> was taking about five hours on a 2.8Ghz Core2. But this is something
> you only have to do once for the import. Later repacks will reuse the
> original deltas.

Actually, Nicolas put quite a bit of work into multi-threading the
repack process; the results have been in master for some time, and will
be in the soon-to-be-released v1.5.4.

The downside is that the threading partitions the object space, so the
resulting size is not necessarily as small (but I don't know that
anybody has done testing on large repos to find out how large the
difference is).

-Peff

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:47:54AM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> 
> > The key to converting repositories of this size is RAM. 4GB minimum,
> > more would be better. git-repack is not multi-threaded. There were a
> > few attempts at making it multi-threaded but none were too successful.
> > If I remember right, with loads of RAM, a repack on a 450MB repository
> > was taking about five hours on a 2.8Ghz Core2. But this is something
> > you only have to do once for the import. Later repacks will reuse the
> > original deltas.
> 
> Actually, Nicolas put quite a bit of work into multi-threading the
> repack process; the results have been in master for some time, and will
> be in the soon-to-be-released v1.5.4.
> 
> The downside is that the threading partitions the object space, so the
> resulting size is not necessarily as small (but I don't know that
> anybody has done testing on large repos to find out how large the
> difference is).

Quick guesstimate is in the 1% ballpark.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> > The downside is that the threading partitions the object space, so the
> > resulting size is not necessarily as small (but I don't know that
> > anybody has done testing on large repos to find out how large the
> > difference is).
> 
> Quick guesstimate is in the 1% ballpark.

Fortunately, we now have numbers. Harvey Harrison reported repacking the
gcc repo and getting these results:

> /usr/bin/time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
>
> 23266.37user 581.04system 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> 0inputs+0outputs (419835major+123275804minor)pagefaults 0swaps
>
> -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison  29091872 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.idx
> -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.pack

I tried the threaded repack with pack.threads = 3 on a dual-processor
machine, and got:

  time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250

  real    309m59.849s
  user    377m43.948s
  sys     8m23.319s

  -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff  28570088 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.idx
  -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff 339922573 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.pack

So it is about 5% bigger. What is really disappointing is that we saved
only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.

-Peff

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> 
> > > The downside is that the threading partitions the object space, so the
> > > resulting size is not necessarily as small (but I don't know that
> > > anybody has done testing on large repos to find out how large the
> > > difference is).
> > 
> > Quick guesstimate is in the 1% ballpark.
> 
> Fortunately, we now have numbers. Harvey Harrison reported repacking the
> gcc repo and getting these results:
> 
> > /usr/bin/time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
> >
> > 23266.37user 581.04system 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
> > 0inputs+0outputs (419835major+123275804minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> >
> > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison  29091872 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.idx
> > -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.pack
> 
> I tried the threaded repack with pack.threads = 3 on a dual-processor
> machine, and got:
> 
>   time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
> 
>   real    309m59.849s
>   user    377m43.948s
>   sys     8m23.319s
> 
>   -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff  28570088 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.idx
>   -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff 339922573 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.pack
> 
> So it is about 5% bigger.

Right.  I should probably revisit that idea of finding deltas across 
partition boundaries to mitigate that loss.  And those partitions could 
be made coarser as well to reduce the number of such partition gaps 
(just increase the value of chunk_size on line 1648 in 
builtin-pack-objects.c).

> What is really disappointing is that we saved
> only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.

Maybe you should run the non threaded repack on the same machine to have 
a good comparison.  And if you have only 2 CPUs, you will have better 
performances with pack.threads = 2, otherwise there'll be wasteful task 
switching going on.

And of course, if the delta cache is being trashed, that might be due to 
the way the existing pack was previously packed.  Hence the current pack 
might impact object _access_ when repacking them.  So for a really 
really fair performance comparison, you'd have to preserve the original 
pack and swap it back before each repack attempt.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:02:58PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:

> > What is really disappointing is that we saved
> > only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> > my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> > objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.
> 
> Maybe you should run the non threaded repack on the same machine to have 
> a good comparison.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. By "saved" I meant "we needed N
minutes of CPU time, but took only M minutes of real time to use it."
IOW, if we assume that the threading had zero overhead and that we were
completely CPU bound, then the task would have taken N minutes of real
time. And obviously those assumptions aren't true, but I was attempting
to say "it would have been at most N minutes of real time to do it
single-threaded."

> And if you have only 2 CPUs, you will have better performances with
> pack.threads = 2, otherwise there'll be wasteful task switching going
> on.

Yes, but balanced by one thread running out of data way earlier than the
other, and completing the task with only one CPU. I am doing a 4-thread
test on a quad-CPU right now, and I will also try it with threads=1 and
threads=6 for comparison.

> And of course, if the delta cache is being trashed, that might be due to 
> the way the existing pack was previously packed.  Hence the current pack 
> might impact object _access_ when repacking them.  So for a really 
> really fair performance comparison, you'd have to preserve the original 
> pack and swap it back before each repack attempt.

I am working each time from the pack generated by fetching from
git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git.

-Peff

Re: Git and GCC

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:50:47AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:

> Yes, but balanced by one thread running out of data way earlier than the
> other, and completing the task with only one CPU. I am doing a 4-thread
> test on a quad-CPU right now, and I will also try it with threads=1 and
> threads=6 for comparison.

Hmm. As this has been running, I read the rest of the thread, and it
looks like Jon Smirl has already posted the interesting numbers. So
nevermind, unless there is something particular you would like to see.

-Peff

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote:
> 
> What is really disappointing is that we saved only about 20% of the 
> time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but my guess is that we 
> spent a long time in the single threaded "writing objects" stage with a 
> thrashing delta cache.

I don't think you spent all that much time writing the objects. That part 
isn't very intensive, it's mostly about the IO.

I suspect you may simply be dominated by memory-throughput issues. The 
delta matching doesn't cache all that well, and using two or more cores 
isn't going to help all that much if they are largely waiting for memory 
(and quite possibly also perhaps fighting each other for a shared cache? 
Is this a Core 2 with the shared L2?)

			Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote:
> >
> > What is really disappointing is that we saved only about 20% of the
> > time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but my guess is that we
> > spent a long time in the single threaded "writing objects" stage with a
> > thrashing delta cache.
>
> I don't think you spent all that much time writing the objects. That part
> isn't very intensive, it's mostly about the IO.
>
> I suspect you may simply be dominated by memory-throughput issues. The
> delta matching doesn't cache all that well, and using two or more cores
> isn't going to help all that much if they are largely waiting for memory
> (and quite possibly also perhaps fighting each other for a shared cache?
> Is this a Core 2 with the shared L2?)

When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
1:15.

A scheme where each core could work a minute without communicating to
the other cores would be best. It would also be more efficient if the
cores could avoid having sync points between them.

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

> On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jeff King wrote:
> > >
> > > What is really disappointing is that we saved only about 20% of the
> > > time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but my guess is that we
> > > spent a long time in the single threaded "writing objects" stage with a
> > > thrashing delta cache.
> >
> > I don't think you spent all that much time writing the objects. That part
> > isn't very intensive, it's mostly about the IO.
> >
> > I suspect you may simply be dominated by memory-throughput issues. The
> > delta matching doesn't cache all that well, and using two or more cores
> > isn't going to help all that much if they are largely waiting for memory
> > (and quite possibly also perhaps fighting each other for a shared cache?
> > Is this a Core 2 with the shared L2?)
> 
> When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
> the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
> core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
> Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
> threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
> 1:15.

But as far as I know you didn't try my latest incarnation which has been
available in Git's master branch for a few months already.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
> > the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
> > core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
> > Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
> > threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
> > 1:15.
>
> But as far as I know you didn't try my latest incarnation which has been
> available in Git's master branch for a few months already.

I've deleted all my giant packs. Using the kernel pack:
4GB Q6600

Using the current thread pack code I get these results.

The interesting case is the last one. I set it to 15 threads and
monitored with 'top'.
For 0-60% compression I was at 300% CPU, 60-74% was 200% CPU and
74-100% was 100% CPU. It never used all for cores. The only other
things running were top and my desktop. This is the same load
balancing problem I observed earlier. Much more clock time was spent
in the 2/1 core phases than the 3 core one.

Threaded, threads = 5

jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$ time git repack -a -d -f
Counting objects: 648366, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (647457/647457), done.
Writing objects: 100% (648366/648366), done.
Total 648366 (delta 528994), reused 0 (delta 0)

real    1m31.395s
user    2m59.239s
sys     0m3.048s
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$

12 seconds counting
53 seconds compressing
38 seconds writing

Without threads,

jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$ time git repack -a -d -f
warning: no threads support, ignoring pack.threads
Counting objects: 648366, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (647457/647457), done.
Writing objects: 100% (648366/648366), done.
Total 648366 (delta 528999), reused 0 (delta 0)

real    2m54.849s
user    2m51.267s
sys     0m1.412s
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$

Threaded, threads = 5

jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$ time git repack -a -d -f --depth=250 --window=250
Counting objects: 648366, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (647457/647457), done.
Writing objects: 100% (648366/648366), done.
Total 648366 (delta 539080), reused 0 (delta 0)

real    9m18.032s
user    19m7.484s
sys     0m3.880s
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$

jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux/.git/objects/pack$ ls -l
total 182156
-r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl  15561848 2007-12-06 16:15
pack-f1f8637d2c68eb1c964ec7c1877196c0c7513412.idx
-r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl 170768761 2007-12-06 16:15
pack-f1f8637d2c68eb1c964ec7c1877196c0c7513412.pack
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux/.git/objects/pack$

Non-threaded:

jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$ time git repack -a -d -f --depth=250 --window=250
warning: no threads support, ignoring pack.threads
Counting objects: 648366, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (647457/647457), done.
Writing objects: 100% (648366/648366), done.
Total 648366 (delta 539080), reused 0 (delta 0)

real    18m51.183s
user    18m46.538s
sys     0m1.604s
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$


jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux/.git/objects/pack$ ls -l
total 182156
-r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl  15561848 2007-12-06 15:33
pack-f1f8637d2c68eb1c964ec7c1877196c0c7513412.idx
-r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl 170768761 2007-12-06 15:33
pack-f1f8637d2c68eb1c964ec7c1877196c0c7513412.pack
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux/.git/objects/pack$

Threaded, threads = 15

jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$ time git repack -a -d -f --depth=250 --window=250
Counting objects: 648366, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (647457/647457), done.
Writing objects: 100% (648366/648366), done.
Total 648366 (delta 539080), reused 0 (delta 0)

real    9m18.325s
user    19m14.340s
sys     0m3.996s
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux$

-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

> On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
> > > the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
> > > core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
> > > Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
> > > threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
> > > 1:15.
> >
> > But as far as I know you didn't try my latest incarnation which has been
> > available in Git's master branch for a few months already.
> 
> I've deleted all my giant packs. Using the kernel pack:
> 4GB Q6600
> 
> Using the current thread pack code I get these results.
> 
> The interesting case is the last one. I set it to 15 threads and
> monitored with 'top'.
> For 0-60% compression I was at 300% CPU, 60-74% was 200% CPU and
> 74-100% was 100% CPU. It never used all for cores. The only other
> things running were top and my desktop. This is the same load
> balancing problem I observed earlier.

Well, that's possible with a window 25 times larger than the default.

The load balancing is solved with a master thread serving relatively 
small object list segments to any work thread that finished with its 
previous segment.  But the size for those segments is currently fixed to 
window * 1000 which is way too large when window == 250.

I have to find a way to auto-tune that segment size somehow.

But with the default window size there should not be any such noticeable 
load balancing problem.

Note that threading only happens in the compression phase.  The count 
and write phase are hardly paralleled.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> > On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > > When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
> > > > the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
> > > > core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
> > > > Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
> > > > threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
> > > > 1:15.
> > >
> > > But as far as I know you didn't try my latest incarnation which has been
> > > available in Git's master branch for a few months already.
> >
> > I've deleted all my giant packs. Using the kernel pack:
> > 4GB Q6600
> >
> > Using the current thread pack code I get these results.
> >
> > The interesting case is the last one. I set it to 15 threads and
> > monitored with 'top'.
> > For 0-60% compression I was at 300% CPU, 60-74% was 200% CPU and
> > 74-100% was 100% CPU. It never used all for cores. The only other
> > things running were top and my desktop. This is the same load
> > balancing problem I observed earlier.
>
> Well, that's possible with a window 25 times larger than the default.
>
> The load balancing is solved with a master thread serving relatively
> small object list segments to any work thread that finished with its
> previous segment.  But the size for those segments is currently fixed to
> window * 1000 which is way too large when window == 250.
>
> I have to find a way to auto-tune that segment size somehow.

That would be nice. Threading is most important on the giant
pack/window combinations. The normal case is fast enough that I don't
real notice it. These giant pack/window combos can run 8-10 hours.

>
> But with the default window size there should not be any such noticeable
> load balancing problem.

I only spend 30 seconds in the compression phase without making the
window larger. It's not long enough to really see what is going on.

>
> Note that threading only happens in the compression phase.  The count
> and write phase are hardly paralleled.
>
>
> Nicolas
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
>
> > On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > > When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
> > > > the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
> > > > core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
> > > > Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
> > > > threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
> > > > 1:15.
> > >
> > > But as far as I know you didn't try my latest incarnation which has been
> > > available in Git's master branch for a few months already.
> >
> > I've deleted all my giant packs. Using the kernel pack:
> > 4GB Q6600
> >
> > Using the current thread pack code I get these results.
> >
> > The interesting case is the last one. I set it to 15 threads and
> > monitored with 'top'.
> > For 0-60% compression I was at 300% CPU, 60-74% was 200% CPU and
> > 74-100% was 100% CPU. It never used all for cores. The only other
> > things running were top and my desktop. This is the same load
> > balancing problem I observed earlier.
>
> Well, that's possible with a window 25 times larger than the default.

Why did it never use more than three cores?

>
> The load balancing is solved with a master thread serving relatively
> small object list segments to any work thread that finished with its
> previous segment.  But the size for those segments is currently fixed to
> window * 1000 which is way too large when window == 250.
>
> I have to find a way to auto-tune that segment size somehow.
>
> But with the default window size there should not be any such noticeable
> load balancing problem.
>
> Note that threading only happens in the compression phase.  The count
> and write phase are hardly paralleled.
>
>
> Nicolas
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

> On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > > > When I lasted looked at the code, the problem was in evenly dividing
> > > > > the work. I was using a four core machine and most of the time one
> > > > > core would end up with 3-5x the work of the lightest loaded core.
> > > > > Setting pack.threads up to 20 fixed the problem. With a high number of
> > > > > threads I was able to get a 4hr pack to finished in something like
> > > > > 1:15.
> > > >
> > > > But as far as I know you didn't try my latest incarnation which has been
> > > > available in Git's master branch for a few months already.
> > >
> > > I've deleted all my giant packs. Using the kernel pack:
> > > 4GB Q6600
> > >
> > > Using the current thread pack code I get these results.
> > >
> > > The interesting case is the last one. I set it to 15 threads and
> > > monitored with 'top'.
> > > For 0-60% compression I was at 300% CPU, 60-74% was 200% CPU and
> > > 74-100% was 100% CPU. It never used all for cores. The only other
> > > things running were top and my desktop. This is the same load
> > > balancing problem I observed earlier.
> >
> > Well, that's possible with a window 25 times larger than the default.
> 
> Why did it never use more than three cores?

You have 648366 objects total, and only 647457 of them are subject to 
delta compression.

With a window size of 250 and a default thread segment of window * 1000 
that means only 3 segments will be distributed to threads, hence only 3 
threads with work to do.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> > > Well, that's possible with a window 25 times larger than the default.
> >
> > Why did it never use more than three cores?
>
> You have 648366 objects total, and only 647457 of them are subject to
> delta compression.
>
> With a window size of 250 and a default thread segment of window * 1000
> that means only 3 segments will be distributed to threads, hence only 3
> threads with work to do.

One little tweak and the clock time drops from 9.5 to 6 minutes. The
tweak makes all four cores work.

jonsmirl@terra:/home/apps/git$ git diff
diff --git a/builtin-pack-objects.c b/builtin-pack-objects.c
index 4f44658..e0dd12e 100644
--- a/builtin-pack-objects.c
+++ b/builtin-pack-objects.c
@@ -1645,7 +1645,7 @@ static void ll_find_deltas(struct object_entry
**list, unsigned list_size,
        }

        /* this should be auto-tuned somehow */
-       chunk_size = window * 1000;
+       chunk_size = window * 50;

        do {
                unsigned sublist_size = chunk_size;


jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux/.git$ time git repack -a -d -f --depth=250
--window=250
Counting objects: 648366, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (647457/647457), done.
Writing objects: 100% (648366/648366), done.
Total 648366 (delta 539043), reused 0 (delta 0)

real    6m2.109s
user    20m0.491s
sys     0m4.608s
jonsmirl@terra:/home/linux/.git$



>
>
> Nicolas
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:35:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > What is really disappointing is that we saved only about 20% of the 
> > time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but my guess is that we 
> > spent a long time in the single threaded "writing objects" stage with a 
> > thrashing delta cache.
> 
> I don't think you spent all that much time writing the objects. That part 
> isn't very intensive, it's mostly about the IO.

It can get nasty with super-long deltas thrashing the cache, I think.
But in this case, I think it ended up being just a poor division of
labor caused by the chunk_size parameter using the quite large window
size (see elsewhere in the thread for discussion).

> I suspect you may simply be dominated by memory-throughput issues. The 
> delta matching doesn't cache all that well, and using two or more cores 
> isn't going to help all that much if they are largely waiting for memory 
> (and quite possibly also perhaps fighting each other for a shared cache? 
> Is this a Core 2 with the shared L2?)

I think the chunk_size more or less explains it. I have had reasonable
success keeping both CPUs busy on similar tasks in the past (but with
smaller window sizes).

For reference, it was a Core 2 Duo; do they all share L2, or is there
something I can look for in /proc/cpuinfo?

-Peff

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

Some interesting stats from the highly packed gcc repo.  The long chain
lengths very quickly tail off.  Over 60% of the objects have a chain
length of 20 or less.  If anyone wants the full list let me know.  I
also have included a few other interesting points, the git default
depth of 50, my initial guess of 100 and every 10% in the cumulative
distribution from 60-100%.

This shows the git default of 50 really isn't that bad, and after
about 100 it really starts to get sparse.  

Harvey

1:	103817	103817	10.20%	1017922
2:	67332	171149	16.81%
3:	57520	228669	22.46%
4:	52570	281239	27.63%
5:	43910	325149	31.94%
6:	37520	362669	35.63%
7:	35248	397917	39.09%
8:	29819	427736	42.02%
9:	27619	455355	44.73%
10:	22656	478011	46.96%
11:	21073	499084	49.03%
12:	18738	517822	50.87%
13:	16674	534496	52.51%
14:	14882	549378	53.97%
15:	14424	563802	55.39%
16:	12765	576567	56.64%
17:	11662	588229	57.79%
18:	11845	600074	58.95%
19:	11694	611768	60.10%
20:	9625	621393	61.05%
34:	5354	719356	70.67%
50:	3395	785342	77.15%
60:	2547	815072	80.07%
100:	1644	898284	88.25%
113:	1292	917046	90.09%
158:	959	967429	95.04%
200:	652	997653	98.01%
219:	491	1008132	99.04%
245:	179	1017717	99.98%
246:	111	1017828	99.99%
247:	61	1017889	100.00%
248:	27	1017916	100.00%
249:	6	1017922	100.00%

Re: Git and GCC

[Gabriel Paubert]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:47:19PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> Some interesting stats from the highly packed gcc repo.  The long chain
> lengths very quickly tail off.  Over 60% of the objects have a chain
> length of 20 or less.  If anyone wants the full list let me know.  I
> also have included a few other interesting points, the git default
> depth of 50, my initial guess of 100 and every 10% in the cumulative
> distribution from 60-100%.
> 
> This shows the git default of 50 really isn't that bad, and after
> about 100 it really starts to get sparse.  

Do you have a way to know which files have the longest chains?

I have a suspiscion that the ChangeLog* files are among them,
not only because they are, almost without exception, only modified
by prepending text to the previous version (and a fairly small amount
compared to the size of the file), and therefore the diff is simple
(a single hunk) so that the limit on chain depth is probably what
causes a new copy to be created. 

Besides that these files grow quite large and become some of the 
largest files in the tree, and at least one of them is changed 
for every commit. This leads again to many versions of fairly 
large files.

If this guess is right, this implies that most of the size gains
from longer chains comes from having less copies of the ChangeLog*
files. From a performance point of view, it is rather favourable
since the differences are simple. This would also explain why
the window parameter has little effect.

	Regards,
	Gabriel

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007, Gabriel Paubert wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 04:47:19PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > Some interesting stats from the highly packed gcc repo.  The long chain
> > lengths very quickly tail off.  Over 60% of the objects have a chain
> > length of 20 or less.  If anyone wants the full list let me know.  I
> > also have included a few other interesting points, the git default
> > depth of 50, my initial guess of 100 and every 10% in the cumulative
> > distribution from 60-100%.
> > 
> > This shows the git default of 50 really isn't that bad, and after
> > about 100 it really starts to get sparse.  
> 
> Do you have a way to know which files have the longest chains?

With 'git verify-pack -v' you get the delta depth for each object.
Then you can use 'git show' with the object SHA1 to see its content.

> I have a suspiscion that the ChangeLog* files are among them,
> not only because they are, almost without exception, only modified
> by prepending text to the previous version (and a fairly small amount
> compared to the size of the file), and therefore the diff is simple
> (a single hunk) so that the limit on chain depth is probably what
> causes a new copy to be created. 

My gcc repo is currently repacked with a max delta depth of 50, and 
a quick sample of those objects at the depth limit does indeed show the 
content of the ChangeLog file.  But I have occurrences of the root 
directory tree object too, and the "GCC machine description for IA-32" 
content as well.

But yes, the really deep delta chains are most certainly going to 
contain those ChangeLog files.

> Besides that these files grow quite large and become some of the 
> largest files in the tree, and at least one of them is changed 
> for every commit. This leads again to many versions of fairly 
> large files.
> 
> If this guess is right, this implies that most of the size gains
> from longer chains comes from having less copies of the ChangeLog*
> files. From a performance point of view, it is rather favourable
> since the differences are simple. This would also explain why
> the window parameter has little effect.

Well, actually the window parameter does have big effects.  For instance 
the default of 10 is completely inadequate for the gcc repo, since 
changing the window size from 10 to 100 made the corresponding pack 
shrink from 2.1GB down to 400MB, with the same max delta depth.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:39:47 -0500

> I tried the threaded repack with pack.threads = 3 on a dual-processor
> machine, and got:
> 
>   time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
> 
>   real    309m59.849s
>   user    377m43.948s
>   sys     8m23.319s
> 
>   -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff  28570088 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.idx
>   -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff 339922573 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.pack
> 
> So it is about 5% bigger. What is really disappointing is that we saved
> only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.

If someone can give me a good way to run this test case I can
have my 64-cpu Niagara-2 box crunch on this and see how fast
it goes and how much larger the resulting pack file is.

Re: Git and GCC

[Jeff King]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:31:21PM -0800, David Miller wrote:

> > So it is about 5% bigger. What is really disappointing is that we saved
> > only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> > my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> > objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.
> 
> If someone can give me a good way to run this test case I can
> have my 64-cpu Niagara-2 box crunch on this and see how fast
> it goes and how much larger the resulting pack file is.

That would be fun to see. The procedure I am using is this:

# compile recent git master with threaded delta
cd git
echo THREADED_DELTA_SEARCH = 1 >>config.mak
make install

# get the gcc pack
mkdir gcc && cd gcc
git --bare init
git config remote.gcc.url git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
git config remote.gcc.fetch \
  '+refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*'
git remote update

# make a copy, so we can run further tests from a known point
cd ..
cp -a gcc test

# and test multithreaded large depth/window repacking
cd test
git config pack.threads 4
time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250

-Peff

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/7/07, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:31:21PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>
> > > So it is about 5% bigger. What is really disappointing is that we saved
> > > only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> > > my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> > > objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.
> >
> > If someone can give me a good way to run this test case I can
> > have my 64-cpu Niagara-2 box crunch on this and see how fast
> > it goes and how much larger the resulting pack file is.
>
> That would be fun to see. The procedure I am using is this:
>
> # compile recent git master with threaded delta
> cd git
> echo THREADED_DELTA_SEARCH = 1 >>config.mak
> make install
>
> # get the gcc pack
> mkdir gcc && cd gcc
> git --bare init
> git config remote.gcc.url git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
> git config remote.gcc.fetch \
>   '+refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*:refs/remotes/gcc.gnu.org/*'
> git remote update
>
> # make a copy, so we can run further tests from a known point
> cd ..
> cp -a gcc test
>
> # and test multithreaded large depth/window repacking
> cd test
> git config pack.threads 4

64 threads with 64 CPUs, if they are multicore you want even more.
you need to adjust chunk_size as mentioned in the other mail.


> time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
>
> -Peff
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: "Jon Smirl" <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 02:10:49 -0500

> On 12/7/07, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:31:21PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > # and test multithreaded large depth/window repacking
> > cd test
> > git config pack.threads 4
> 
> 64 threads with 64 CPUs, if they are multicore you want even more.
> you need to adjust chunk_size as mentioned in the other mail.

It's an 8 core system with 64 cpu threads.

> > time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250

Didn't work very well, even with the one-liner patch for
chunk_size it died.  I think I need to build 64-bit
binaries.

davem@huronp11:~/src/GCC/git/test$ time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
Counting objects: 1190671, done.
fatal: Out of memory? mmap failed: Cannot allocate memory

real    58m36.447s
user    289m8.270s
sys     4m40.680s
davem@huronp11:~/src/GCC/git/test$ 

While it did run the load was anywhere between 5 and 9, although it
did create 64 threads, and the size of the process was about 3.2GB
This may be in part why it wasn't able to use all 64 thread
effectively.  Like I said it seemed to have 9 active at best, at any
one time, most of the time only 4 or 5 were busy doing anything.

Also I could end up being performance limited by SHA, it's not very
well tuned on Sparc.  It's been on my TODO list to code up the crypto
unit support for Niagara-2 in the kernel, then work with Herbert Xu on
the userland interfaces to take advantage of that in things like
libssl.  Even a better C/asm version would probably improve GIT
performance a bit.

Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
I should run oprofile...

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> 
> Also I could end up being performance limited by SHA, it's not very
> well tuned on Sparc.  It's been on my TODO list to code up the crypto
> unit support for Niagara-2 in the kernel, then work with Herbert Xu on
> the userland interfaces to take advantage of that in things like
> libssl.  Even a better C/asm version would probably improve GIT
> performance a bit.

I doubt yu can use the hardware support. Kernel-only hw support is 
inherently broken for any sane user-space usage, the setup costs are just 
way way too high. To be useful, crypto engines need to support direct user 
space access (ie a regular instruction, with all state being held in 
normal registers that get saved/restored by the kernel).

> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
> I should run oprofile...

SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But we 
have a good optimized version there.

zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: it 
may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it 
totally dominates).

			Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Giovanni Bajo]

On 12/7/2007 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
>> I should run oprofile...
> 
> SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But we 
> have a good optimized version there.
> 
> zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: it 
> may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it 
> totally dominates).

Have you considered alternatives, like:
http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/
-- 
Giovanni Bajo

Re: Git and GCC

[Giovanni Bajo]

On 12/7/2007 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
>> I should run oprofile...
> 
> SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But we 
> have a good optimized version there.
> 
> zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: it 
> may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it 
> totally dominates).

Have you considered alternatives, like:
http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/
-- 
Giovanni Bajo

Re: Git and GCC

[Jakub Narebski]

Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com> writes:

> On 12/7/2007 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> >> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
> >> I should run oprofile...
> > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But
> > we have a good optimized version there.
> > zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the
> > *uncompression*: it may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_
> > much more that it totally dominates).
> 
> Have you considered alternatives, like:
> http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/

<quote>
  As compared to LZO, the UCL algorithms achieve a better compression
  ratio but *decompression* is a little bit slower. See below for some
  rough timings.
</quote>

It is uncompression speed that is more important, because it is used
much more often.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: Git and GCC

[Luke Lu]

On Dec 7, 2007, at 2:14 PM, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com> writes:
>> On 12/7/2007 6:23 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
>>>> I should run oprofile...
>>> SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But
>>> we have a good optimized version there.
>>> zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the
>>> *uncompression*: it may be faster than compression, but it's done  
>>> _so_
>>> much more that it totally dominates).
>>
>> Have you considered alternatives, like:
>> http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/
>
> <quote>
>   As compared to LZO, the UCL algorithms achieve a better compression
>   ratio but *decompression* is a little bit slower. See below for some
>   rough timings.
> </quote>
>
> It is uncompression speed that is more important, because it is used
> much more often.

So why didn't we consider lzo then? It's much faster than zlib.

__Luke

  

Re: Git and GCC

[Giovanni Bajo]

On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 14:14 -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> > >> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
> > >> I should run oprofile...
> > > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But
> > > we have a good optimized version there.
> > > zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the
> > > *uncompression*: it may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_
> > > much more that it totally dominates).
> > 
> > Have you considered alternatives, like:
> > http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/
> 
> <quote>
>   As compared to LZO, the UCL algorithms achieve a better compression
>   ratio but *decompression* is a little bit slower. See below for some
>   rough timings.
> </quote>
> 
> It is uncompression speed that is more important, because it is used
> much more often.

I know, but the point is not what is the fastestest, but if it's fast
enough to get off the profiles. I think UCL is fast enough since it's
still times faster than zlib. Anyway, LZO is GPL too, so why not
considering it too. They are good libraries.
-- 
Giovanni Bajo

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/7/07, Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 14:14 -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>
> > > >> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
> > > >> I should run oprofile...
> > > > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But
> > > > we have a good optimized version there.
> > > > zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the
> > > > *uncompression*: it may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_
> > > > much more that it totally dominates).
> > >
> > > Have you considered alternatives, like:
> > > http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/
> >
> > <quote>
> >   As compared to LZO, the UCL algorithms achieve a better compression
> >   ratio but *decompression* is a little bit slower. See below for some
> >   rough timings.
> > </quote>
> >
> > It is uncompression speed that is more important, because it is used
> > much more often.
>
> I know, but the point is not what is the fastestest, but if it's fast
> enough to get off the profiles. I think UCL is fast enough since it's
> still times faster than zlib. Anyway, LZO is GPL too, so why not
> considering it too. They are good libraries.


At worst, you could also use fastlz (www.fastlz.org), which is faster
than all of these by a factor of 4 (and compression wise, is actually
sometimes better, sometimes worse, than LZO).

Re: Git and GCC

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:

> On 12/7/07, Giovanni Bajo <rasky@develer.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 14:14 -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these 
> > > > >> repacks? I should run oprofile...
> > > > > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. 
> > > > > But we have a good optimized version there. zlib tends to be a 
> > > > > lot more noticeable (especially the *uncompression*: it may be 
> > > > > faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it 
> > > > > totally dominates).
> > > >
> > > > Have you considered alternatives, like: 
> > > > http://www.oberhumer.com/opensource/ucl/
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > >   As compared to LZO, the UCL algorithms achieve a better 
> > >   compression ratio but *decompression* is a little bit slower. See 
> > >   below for some rough timings.
> > > </quote>
> > >
> > > It is uncompression speed that is more important, because it is used 
> > > much more often.
> >
> > I know, but the point is not what is the fastestest, but if it's fast 
> > enough to get off the profiles. I think UCL is fast enough since it's 
> > still times faster than zlib. Anyway, LZO is GPL too, so why not 
> > considering it too. They are good libraries.
> 
> 
> At worst, you could also use fastlz (www.fastlz.org), which is faster 
> than all of these by a factor of 4 (and compression wise, is actually 
> sometimes better, sometimes worse, than LZO).

fastLZ is awfully short on details when it comes to a comparison of the 
resulting file sizes.

The only result I saw was that for the (single) example they chose, 
compressed size was 470MB as opposed to 361MB for zip's _fastest_ mode.

Really, that's not acceptable for me in the context of git.

Besides, if you change the compression algorithm you will have to add 
support for legacy clients to _recompress_ with libz.  Which most likely 
would make Sisyphos grin watching them servers.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:23:47 -0800 (PST)

> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > Also I could end up being performance limited by SHA, it's not very
> > well tuned on Sparc.  It's been on my TODO list to code up the crypto
> > unit support for Niagara-2 in the kernel, then work with Herbert Xu on
> > the userland interfaces to take advantage of that in things like
> > libssl.  Even a better C/asm version would probably improve GIT
> > performance a bit.
> 
> I doubt yu can use the hardware support. Kernel-only hw support is 
> inherently broken for any sane user-space usage, the setup costs are just 
> way way too high. To be useful, crypto engines need to support direct user 
> space access (ie a regular instruction, with all state being held in 
> normal registers that get saved/restored by the kernel).

Unfortunately they are hypervisor calls, and you have to give
the thing physical addresses for the buffer to work on, so
letting userland get at it directly isn't currently doable.

I still believe that there are cases where userland can take
advantage of in-kernel crypto devices, such as when we are
streaming the data into the kernel anyways (for a write()
or sendmsg()) and the user just wants the transformation to
be done on that stream.

As a specific case, hardware crypto SSL support works quite
well for sendmsg() user packet data.  And this the kind of API
Solaris provides to get good SSL performance with Niagara.

> > Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
> > I should run oprofile...
> 
> SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But we 
> have a good optimized version there.

Ok.

> zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: it 
> may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it 
> totally dominates).

zlib is really hard to optimize on Sparc, I've tried numerous times.
Actually compress is the real cycle killer, and in that case the inner
loop wants to dereference 2-byte shorts at a time but they are
unaligned half of the time, and any the check for alignment nullifies
the gains of avoiding the two byte loads.

Uncompress I don't think is optimized at all on any platform with
asm stuff like the compress side is.  It's a pretty straightforward
transformation and the memory accesses dominate the overhead.

I'll do some profiling to see what might be worth looking into.

Re: Git and GCC

[David Miller]

From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 04:53:29 -0800 (PST)

> I should run oprofile...

While doing the initial object counting, most of the time is spent in
lookup_object(), memcmp() (via hashcmp()), and inflate().  I tried to
see if I could do some tricks on sparc with the hashcmp() but the sha1
pointers are very often not even 4 byte aligned.

I suspect lookup_object() could be improved if it didn't use a hash
table without chaining, but I can see why 'struct object' size is a
concern and thus why things are done the way they are.

samples  %        app name                 symbol name
504      13.7517  libc-2.6.1.so            memcmp
386      10.5321  libz.so.1.2.3.3          inflate
288       7.8581  git                      lookup_object
248       6.7667  libz.so.1.2.3.3          inflate_fast
201       5.4843  libz.so.1.2.3.3          inflate_table
175       4.7749  git                      decode_tree_entry
 ...

Deltifying is %94 consumed by create_delta(), the rest is completely
in the noise.

samples  %        app name                 symbol name
10581    94.8373  git                      create_delta
181       1.6223  git                      create_delta_index
72        0.6453  git                      prepare_pack
55        0.4930  libc-2.6.1.so            loop
34        0.3047  libz.so.1.2.3.3          inflate_fast
33        0.2958  libc-2.6.1.so            _int_malloc
22        0.1972  libshadow.so             shadowUpdatePacked
21        0.1882  libc-2.6.1.so            _int_free
19        0.1703  libc-2.6.1.so            malloc
 ...

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> Actually, it turns out that git-gc --aggressive does this dumb thing
> to pack files sometimes regardless of whether you converted from an
> SVN repo or not.

Absolutely. git --aggressive is mostly dumb. It's really only useful for 
the case of "I know I have a *really* bad pack, and I want to throw away 
all the bad packing decisions I have done".

To explain this, it's worth explaining (you are probably aware of it, but 
let me go through the basics anyway) how git delta-chains work, and how 
they are so different from most other systems.

In other SCM's, a delta-chain is generally fixed. It might be "forwards" 
or "backwards", and it might evolve a bit as you work with the repository, 
but generally it's a chain of changes to a single file represented as some 
kind of single SCM entity. In CVS, it's obviously the *,v file, and a lot 
of other systems do rather similar things.

Git also does delta-chains, but it does them a lot more "loosely". There 
is no fixed entity. Delta's are generated against any random other version 
that git deems to be a good delta candidate (with various fairly 
successful heursitics), and there are absolutely no hard grouping rules.

This is generally a very good thing. It's good for various conceptual 
reasons (ie git internally never really even needs to care about the whole 
revision chain - it doesn't really think in terms of deltas at all), but 
it's also great because getting rid of the inflexible delta rules means 
that git doesn't have any problems at all with merging two files together, 
for example - there simply are no arbitrary *,v "revision files" that have 
some hidden meaning.

It also means that the choice of deltas is a much more open-ended 
question. If you limit the delta chain to just one file, you really don't 
have a lot of choices on what to do about deltas, but in git, it really 
can be a totally different issue.

And this is where the really badly named "--aggressive" comes in. While 
git generally tries to re-use delta information (because it's a good idea, 
and it doesn't waste CPU time re-finding all the good deltas we found 
earlier), sometimes you want to say "let's start all over, with a blank 
slate, and ignore all the previous delta information, and try to generate 
a new set of deltas".

So "--aggressive" is not really about being aggressive, but about wasting 
CPU time re-doing a decision we already did earlier!

*Sometimes* that is a good thing. Some import tools in particular could 
generate really horribly bad deltas. Anything that uses "git fast-import", 
for example, likely doesn't have much of a great delta layout, so it might 
be worth saying "I want to start from a clean slate".

But almost always, in other cases, it's actually a really bad thing to do. 
It's going to waste CPU time, and especially if you had actually done a 
good job at deltaing earlier, the end result isn't going to re-use all 
those *good* deltas you already found, so you'll actually end up with a 
much worse end result too!

I'll send a patch to Junio to just remove the "git gc --aggressive" 
documentation. It can be useful, but it generally is useful only when you 
really understand at a very deep level what it's doing, and that 
documentation doesn't help you do that.

Generally, doing incremental "git gc" is the right approach, and better 
than doing "git gc --aggressive". It's going to re-use old deltas, and 
when those old deltas can't be found (the reason for doing incremental GC 
in the first place!) it's going to create new ones.

On the other hand, it's definitely true that an "initial import of a long 
and involved history" is a point where it can be worth spending a lot of 
time finding the *really*good* deltas. Then, every user ever after (as 
long as they don't use "git gc --aggressive" to undo it!) will get the 
advantage of that one-time event. So especially for big projects with a 
long history, it's probably worth doing some extra work, telling the delta 
finding code to go wild.

So the equivalent of "git gc --aggressive" - but done *properly* - is to 
do (overnight) something like

	git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250

where that depth thing is just about how deep the delta chains can be 
(make them longer for old history - it's worth the space overhead), and 
the window thing is about how big an object window we want each delta 
candidate to scan.

And here, you might well want to add the "-f" flag (which is the "drop all 
old deltas", since you now are actually trying to make sure that this one 
actually finds good candidates.

And then it's going to take forever and a day (ie a "do it overnight" 
thing). But the end result is that everybody downstream from that 
repository will get much better packs, without having to spend any effort 
on it themselves.

			Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

> 	git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
> 

Since I have the whole gcc repo locally I'll give this a shot overnight
just to see what can be done at the extreme end or things.

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[David Brown]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 11:49:21PM -0800, Harvey Harrison wrote:
>
>> 	git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
>> 
>
>Since I have the whole gcc repo locally I'll give this a shot overnight
>just to see what can be done at the extreme end or things.

When I tried this on a very large repo, at least one with some large files
in it, git quickly exceeded my physical memory and started thrashing the
machine.  I had good results with

  git config pack.deltaCacheSize 512m
  git config pack.windowMemory 512m

of course adjusting based on your physical memory.  I think changing the
windowMemory will affect the resulting compression, so changing these
ratios might get better compression out of the result.

If you're really patient, though, you could leave the unbounded window,
hope you have enough swap, and just let it run.

Dave

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:

> 
> > 	git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
> > 
> 
> Since I have the whole gcc repo locally I'll give this a shot overnight
> just to see what can be done at the extreme end or things.

Don't forget to add -f as well.


Nicolas

[PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Johannes Schindelin]

The default was not to change the window or depth at all.  As suggested
by Jon Smirl, Linus Torvalds and others, default to

	--window=250 --depth=250

Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
---

	On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

	> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
	> > 
	> > Actually, it turns out that git-gc --aggressive does this dumb 
	> > thing to pack files sometimes regardless of whether you 
	> > converted from an SVN repo or not.
	> 
	> Absolutely. git --aggressive is mostly dumb. It's really only 
	> useful for the case of "I know I have a *really* bad pack, and I 
	> want to throw away all the bad packing decisions I have done".
	>
	> [...]
	> 
	> So the equivalent of "git gc --aggressive" - but done *properly* 
	> - is to do (overnight) something like
	> 
	> 	git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250

	How about this, then?
	
 builtin-gc.c |    3 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/builtin-gc.c b/builtin-gc.c
index 799c263..c6806d3 100644
--- a/builtin-gc.c
+++ b/builtin-gc.c
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ static const char * const builtin_gc_usage[] = {
 };
 
 static int pack_refs = 1;
-static int aggressive_window = -1;
+static int aggressive_window = 250;
 static int gc_auto_threshold = 6700;
 static int gc_auto_pack_limit = 20;
 
@@ -192,6 +192,7 @@ int cmd_gc(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
 
 	if (aggressive) {
 		append_option(argv_repack, "-f", MAX_ADD);
+		append_option(argv_repack, "--depth=250", MAX_ADD);
 		if (aggressive_window > 0) {
 			sprintf(buf, "--window=%d", aggressive_window);
 			append_option(argv_repack, buf, MAX_ADD);
-- 
1.5.3.7.2157.g9598e

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Theodore Tso]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:03:38PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> The default was not to change the window or depth at all.  As suggested
> by Jon Smirl, Linus Torvalds and others, default to
> 
> 	--window=250 --depth=250

I'd also suggest adding a comment in the man pages that this should
only be done rarely, and that it can potentially take a *long* time
(i.e., overnight) for big repositories, and in general it's not worth
the effort to use --aggressive.

Apologies to Linus and to the gcc folks, since I was the one who
originally coded up gc --aggressive, and at the time my intent was
"rarely does it make sense, and it may take a long time".  The reason
why I didn't make the default --window and --depth larger is because
at the time the biggest repo I had easy access to was the Linux
kernel's, and there you rapidly hit diminishing returns at much
smaller numbers, so there was no real point in using --window=250
--depth=250.

Linus later pointed out that what we *really* should do is at some
point was to change repack -f to potentially retry to find a better
delta, but to reuse the existing delta if it was no worse.  That
automatically does the right thing in the case where you had
previously done a repack with --window=<large n> --depth=<large n>,
but then later try using "gc --agressive", which ends up doing a worse
job and throwing away the information from the previous repack with
large window and depth sizes.  Unfortunately no one ever got around to
implementing that.

Regards,

						- Ted

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:

> Linus later pointed out that what we *really* should do is at some
> point was to change repack -f to potentially retry to find a better
> delta, but to reuse the existing delta if it was no worse.  That
> automatically does the right thing in the case where you had
> previously done a repack with --window=<large n> --depth=<large n>,
> but then later try using "gc --agressive", which ends up doing a worse
> job and throwing away the information from the previous repack with
> large window and depth sizes.  Unfortunately no one ever got around to
> implementing that.

I did start looking at it, but there are subtle issues to consider, such 
as making sure not to create delta loops.  Currently this is avoided by 
never involving already reused deltas in new delta chains, except for 
edge base objects.

IOW, this requires some head scratching which I didn't have the time for 
so far.


Nicolas

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Pierre Habouzit]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 655 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:03:38PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> The default was not to change the window or depth at all.  As suggested
> by Jon Smirl, Linus Torvalds and others, default to
> 
> 	--window=250 --depth=250

  well, this will explode on many quite reasonnably sized systems. This
should also use a memory-limit that could be auto-guessed from the
system total physical memory (50% of the actual memory could be a good
idea e.g.).

  On very large repositories, using that on the e.g. linux kernel, swaps
like hell on a machine with 1Go of ram, and almost nothing running on it
(less than 200Mo of ram actually used)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:03:38PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > 
> > The default was not to change the window or depth at all.  As 
> > suggested by Jon Smirl, Linus Torvalds and others, default to
> > 
> > 	--window=250 --depth=250
> 
>   well, this will explode on many quite reasonnably sized systems. This 
> should also use a memory-limit that could be auto-guessed from the 
> system total physical memory (50% of the actual memory could be a good 
> idea e.g.).
> 
>   On very large repositories, using that on the e.g. linux kernel, swaps 
> like hell on a machine with 1Go of ram, and almost nothing running on it 
> (less than 200Mo of ram actually used)

Yes.

However, I think that --aggressive should be aggressive, and if you decide 
to run it on a machine which lacks the muscle to be aggressive, well, you 
should have known better.

The upside: if you run this on a strong machine and clone it to a weak 
machine, you'll still have the benefit of a small pack (and you should 
mark it as .keep, too, to keep the benefit...)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[David Kastrup]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> However, I think that --aggressive should be aggressive, and if you
> decide to run it on a machine which lacks the muscle to be aggressive,
> well, you should have known better.

That's a rather cheap shot.  "you should have known better" than
expecting to be able to use a documented command and option because the
git developers happened to have a nicer machine...

_How_ is one supposed to have known better?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Harvey Harrison]

Wow

/usr/bin/time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250


23266.37user 581.04system 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (419835major+123275804minor)pagefaults 0swaps

-r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison  29091872 2007-12-06 07:26
pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.idx
-r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26
pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.pack


That extra delta depth really does make a difference.  Just over a
300MB pack in the end, for all gcc branches/tags as of last night.

Cheers,

Harvey

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:

> -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26
> pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.pack

Wow.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH] gc --aggressive: make it really aggressive

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> 
> 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU

Heh. And this is why you want to do it exactly *once*, and then just 
export the end result for others ;)

> -r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 324094684 2007-12-06 07:26 pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad316deb922be06b167a3d.pack

But yeah, especially if you allow longer delta chains, the end result can 
be much smaller (and what makes the one-time repack more expensive is the 
window size, not the delta chain - you could make the delta chains longer 
with no cost overhead at packing time)

HOWEVER. 

The longer delta chains do make it potentially much more expensive to then 
use old history. So there's a trade-off. And quite frankly, a delta depth 
of 250 is likely going to cause overflows in the delta cache (which is 
only 256 entries in size *and* it's a hash, so it's going to start having 
hash conflicts long before hitting the 250 depth limit).

So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those numbers more as 
an example of extremely aggressive packing, and I'm not at all sure that 
the end result is necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk 
space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used for the network 
protocol too!), but there are definitely downsides too, and using long 
delta chains may simply not be worth it in practice.

(And some of it might just want to have git tuning, ie if people think 
that long deltas are worth it, we could easily just expand on the delta 
hash, at the cost of some more memory used!)

That said, the good news is that working with *new* history will not be 
affected negatively, and if you want to be _really_ sneaky, there are ways 
to say "create a pack that contains the history up to a version one year 
ago, and be very aggressive about those old versions that we still want to 
have around, but do a separate pack for newer stuff using less aggressive 
parameters"

So this is something that can be tweaked, although we don't really have 
any really nice interfaces for stuff like that (ie the git delta cache 
size is hardcoded in the sources and cannot be set in the config file, and 
the "pack old history more aggressively" involves some manual scripting 
and knowing how "git pack-objects" works rather than any nice simple 
command line switch).

So the thing to take away from this is:
 - git is certainly flexible as hell
 - .. but to get the full power you may need to tweak things
 - .. happily you really only need to have one person to do the tweaking, 
   and the tweaked end results will be available to others that do not 
   need to know/care.

And whether the difference between 320MB and 500MB is worth any really 
involved tweaking (considering the potential downsides), I really don't 
know. Only testing will tell.

			Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it turns out that git-gc --aggressive does this dumb thing
> > to pack files sometimes regardless of whether you converted from an
> > SVN repo or not.
>
> Absolutely. git --aggressive is mostly dumb. It's really only useful for
> the case of "I know I have a *really* bad pack, and I want to throw away
> all the bad packing decisions I have done".
>
> To explain this, it's worth explaining (you are probably aware of it, but
> let me go through the basics anyway) how git delta-chains work, and how
> they are so different from most other systems.
>
I worked on Monotone and other systems that use object stores. for a
little while :)
In particular, I believe GIT's original object store was based on
Monotone, IIRC.

> In other SCM's, a delta-chain is generally fixed. It might be "forwards"
> or "backwards", and it might evolve a bit as you work with the repository,
> but generally it's a chain of changes to a single file represented as some
> kind of single SCM entity. In CVS, it's obviously the *,v file, and a lot
> of other systems do rather similar things.

>
> Git also does delta-chains, but it does them a lot more "loosely". There
> is no fixed entity. Delta's are generated against any random other version
> that git deems to be a good delta candidate (with various fairly
> successful heursitics), and there are absolutely no hard grouping rules.

Sure. SVN actually supports this (surprisingly), it just never happens
to choose delta bases that aren't related by ancestry.  (IE it would
have absolutely no problem with you using random other parts of the
repository as delta bases, and i've played with it before).

I actually advocated we move towards an object store model, as
ancestry can be a  crappy way of approximating similarity when you
have a lot of branches.

> So the equivalent of "git gc --aggressive" - but done *properly* - is to
> do (overnight) something like
>
>         git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
>
I gave this a try overnight, and it definitely helps a lot.
Thanks!

> And then it's going to take forever and a day (ie a "do it overnight"
> thing). But the end result is that everybody downstream from that
> repository will get much better packs, without having to spend any effort
> on it themselves.
>

If your forever and a day is spent figuring out which deltas to use,
you can reduce this significantly.
If it is spent writing out the data, it's much harder. :)

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> I worked on Monotone and other systems that use object stores. for a 
> little while :) In particular, I believe GIT's original object store was 
> based on Monotone, IIRC.

Yes and no. 

Monotone does what git does for the blobs. But there is a big difference 
in how git then does it for everything else too, ie trees and history. 
Tree being in that object store in particular are very important, and one 
of the biggest deals for deltas (actually, for two reasons: most of the 
time they don't change AT ALL if some subdirectory gets no changes and you 
don't need any delta, and even when they do change, it's usually going to 
delta very well, since it's usually just a small part that changes).

> > And then it's going to take forever and a day (ie a "do it overnight"
> > thing). But the end result is that everybody downstream from that
> > repository will get much better packs, without having to spend any effort
> > on it themselves.
> 
> If your forever and a day is spent figuring out which deltas to use,
> you can reduce this significantly.

It's almost all about figuring out the delta. Which is why *not* using 
"-f" (or "--aggressive") is such a big deal for normal operation, because 
then you just skip it all.

		Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 13:04 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > So the equivalent of "git gc --aggressive" - but done *properly* - is to
> > do (overnight) something like
> >
> >         git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
> >
> I gave this a try overnight, and it definitely helps a lot.
> Thanks!

I've updated the public mirror repo with the very-packed version.

People cloning it now should get the just over 300MB repo now.

git.infradead.org/gcc.git


Cheers,

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> 
> I've updated the public mirror repo with the very-packed version.

Side note: it might be interesting to compare timings for 
history-intensive stuff with and without this kind of very-packed 
situation.

The very density of a smaller pack-file might be enough to overcome the 
downsides (more CPU time to apply longer delta-chains), but regardless, 
real numbers talks, bullshit walks. So wouldn't it be nice to have real 
numbers?

One easy way to get real numbers for history would be to just time some 
reasonably costly operation that uses lots of history. Ie just do a 

	time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null

and see if the deeper delta chains are very expensive.

(Yeah, the above is pretty much designed to be the worst possible case for 
this kind of aggressive history packing, but I don't know if that choice 
of file to try to annotate is a good choice or not. I suspect that "git 
blame -C" with a CVS import is just horrid, because CVS commits tend to be 
pretty big and nasty and not as localized as we've tried to make things in 
the kernel, so doing the code copy detection is probably horrendously 
expensive)

			Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >
> > I've updated the public mirror repo with the very-packed version.
>
> Side note: it might be interesting to compare timings for
> history-intensive stuff with and without this kind of very-packed
> situation.
>
> The very density of a smaller pack-file might be enough to overcome the
> downsides (more CPU time to apply longer delta-chains), but regardless,
> real numbers talks, bullshit walks. So wouldn't it be nice to have real
> numbers?
>
> One easy way to get real numbers for history would be to just time some
> reasonably costly operation that uses lots of history. Ie just do a
>
>         time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
>
> and see if the deeper delta chains are very expensive.

jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc$ time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null

real    1m21.967s
user    1m21.329s
sys     0m0.640s

The Mozilla repo is at least 50% larger than the gcc one. It took me
23 minutes to repack the gcc one on my $800 Dell. The trick to this is
lots of RAM and 64b. There is little disk IO during the compression
phase, everything is cached.

I have a 4.8GB git process with 4GB of physical memory. Everything
started slowing down a lot when the process got that big. Does git
really need 4.8GB to repack? I could only keep 3.4GB resident. Luckily
this happen at 95% completion. With 8GB of memory you should be able
to do this repack in under 20 minutes.

jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc$ time git repack -a -d -f --depth=250 --window=250
real    22m54.380s
user    69m18.948s
sys     0m23.773s


> (Yeah, the above is pretty much designed to be the worst possible case for
> this kind of aggressive history packing, but I don't know if that choice
> of file to try to annotate is a good choice or not. I suspect that "git
> blame -C" with a CVS import is just horrid, because CVS commits tend to be
> pretty big and nasty and not as localized as we've tried to make things in
> the kernel, so doing the code copy detection is probably horrendously
> expensive)
>
>                         Linus
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

> I have a 4.8GB git process with 4GB of physical memory. Everything
> started slowing down a lot when the process got that big. Does git
> really need 4.8GB to repack? I could only keep 3.4GB resident. Luckily
> this happen at 95% completion. With 8GB of memory you should be able
> to do this repack in under 20 minutes.

Probably you have too many cached delta results.  By default, every 
delta smaller than 1000 bytes is kept in memory until the write phase.  
Try using pack.deltacachesize = 256M or lower, or try disabling this 
caching entirely with pack.deltacachelimit = 0.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >
> >         time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
> 
> jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc$ time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
> 
> real    1m21.967s
> user    1m21.329s

Well, I was also hoping for a "compared to not-so-aggressive packing" 
number on the same machine.. IOW, what I was wondering is whether there is 
a visible performance downside to the deeper delta chains in the 300MB 
pack vs the (less aggressive) 500MB pack.

		Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Smirl]

On 12/7/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > >
> > >         time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
> >
> > jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc$ time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
> >
> > real    1m21.967s
> > user    1m21.329s
>
> Well, I was also hoping for a "compared to not-so-aggressive packing"
> number on the same machine.. IOW, what I was wondering is whether there is
> a visible performance downside to the deeper delta chains in the 300MB
> pack vs the (less aggressive) 500MB pack.

Same machine with a default pack

jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc/.git/objects/pack$ ls -l
total 2145716
-r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl   23667932 2007-12-07 02:03
pack-bd163555ea9240a7fdd07d2708a293872665f48b.idx
-r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl 2171385413 2007-12-07 02:03
pack-bd163555ea9240a7fdd07d2708a293872665f48b.pack
jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc/.git/objects/pack$

Delta lengths have virtually no impact. The bigger pack file causes
more IO which offsets the increased delta processing time.

One of my rules is smaller is almost always better. Smaller eliminates
IO and helps with the CPU cache. It's like the kernel being optimized
for size instead of speed ending up being  faster.

time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
real    1m19.289s
user    1m17.853s
sys     0m0.952s



>
>                 Linus
>


-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com

Re: Git and GCC

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:

> On 12/7/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > >
> > > >         time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
> > >
> > > jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc$ time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null
> > >
> > > real    1m21.967s
> > > user    1m21.329s
> >
> > Well, I was also hoping for a "compared to not-so-aggressive packing"
> > number on the same machine.. IOW, what I was wondering is whether there is
> > a visible performance downside to the deeper delta chains in the 300MB
> > pack vs the (less aggressive) 500MB pack.
> 
> Same machine with a default pack
> 
> jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc/.git/objects/pack$ ls -l
> total 2145716
> -r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl   23667932 2007-12-07 02:03
> pack-bd163555ea9240a7fdd07d2708a293872665f48b.idx
> -r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl 2171385413 2007-12-07 02:03
> pack-bd163555ea9240a7fdd07d2708a293872665f48b.pack
> jonsmirl@terra:/video/gcc/.git/objects/pack$
> 
> Delta lengths have virtually no impact. 

I can confirm this.

I just did a repack keeping the default depth of 50 but with window=100 
instead of the default of 10, and the pack shrunk from 2171385413 bytes 
down to 410607140 bytes.

So our default window size is definitely not adequate for the gcc repo.

OTOH, I recall tytso mentioning something about not having much return 
on  a bigger window size in his tests when he proposed to increase the 
default delta depth to 50.  So there is definitely some kind of threshold 
at which point the increased window size stops being advantageous wrt 
the number of cycles involved, and we should find a way to correlate it 
to the data set to have a better default window size than the current 
fixed default.


Nicolas

Re: Git and GCC

[NightStrike]

On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> > Actually, it turns out that git-gc --aggressive does this dumb thing
> > to pack files sometimes regardless of whether you converted from an
> > SVN repo or not.
> I'll send a patch to Junio to just remove the "git gc --aggressive"
> documentation. It can be useful, but it generally is useful only when you
> really understand at a very deep level what it's doing, and that
> documentation doesn't help you do that.

No disrespect is meant by this reply.  I am just curious (and I am
probably misunderstanding something)..  Why remove all of the
documentation entirely?  Wouldn't it be better to just document it
more thoroughly?  I thought you did a fine job in this post in
explaining its purpose, when to use it, when not to, etc.  Removing
the documention seems counter-intuitive when you've already gone to
the trouble of creating good documentation here in this post.

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, NightStrike wrote:
> 
> No disrespect is meant by this reply.  I am just curious (and I am
> probably misunderstanding something)..  Why remove all of the
> documentation entirely?  Wouldn't it be better to just document it
> more thoroughly?

Well, part of it is that I don't think "--aggressive" as it is implemented 
right now is really almost *ever* the right answer. We could change the 
implementation, of course, but generally the right thing to do is to not 
use it (tweaking the "--window" and "--depth" manually for the repacking 
is likely the more natural thing to do).

The other part of the answer is that, when you *do* want to do what that 
"--aggressive" tries to achieve, it's such a special case event that while 
it should probably be documented, I don't think it should necessarily be 
documented where it is now (as part of "git gc"), but as part of a much 
more technical manual for "deep and subtle tricks you can play".

> I thought you did a fine job in this post in explaining its purpose, 
> when to use it, when not to, etc.  Removing the documention seems 
> counter-intuitive when you've already gone to the trouble of creating 
> good documentation here in this post.

I'm so used to writing emails, and I *like* trying to explain what is 
going on, so I have no problems at all doing that kind of thing. However, 
trying to write a manual or man-page or other technical documentation is 
something rather different.

IOW, I like explaining git within the _context_ of a discussion or a 
particular problem/issue. But documentation should work regardless of 
context (or at least set it up), and that's the part I am not so good at.

In other words, if somebody (hint hint) thinks my explanation was good and 
readable, I'd love for them to try to turn it into real documentation by 
editing it up and creating enough context for it! But I'm nort personally 
very likely to do that. I'd just send Junio the patch to remove a 
misleading part of the documentation we have.

		Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[NightStrike]

On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, NightStrike wrote:
> >
> > No disrespect is meant by this reply.  I am just curious (and I am
> > probably misunderstanding something)..  Why remove all of the
> > documentation entirely?  Wouldn't it be better to just document it
> > more thoroughly?
>
> Well, part of it is that I don't think "--aggressive" as it is implemented
> right now is really almost *ever* the right answer. We could change the
> implementation, of course, but generally the right thing to do is to not
> use it (tweaking the "--window" and "--depth" manually for the repacking
> is likely the more natural thing to do).
>
> The other part of the answer is that, when you *do* want to do what that
> "--aggressive" tries to achieve, it's such a special case event that while
> it should probably be documented, I don't think it should necessarily be
> documented where it is now (as part of "git gc"), but as part of a much
> more technical manual for "deep and subtle tricks you can play".
>
> > I thought you did a fine job in this post in explaining its purpose,
> > when to use it, when not to, etc.  Removing the documention seems
> > counter-intuitive when you've already gone to the trouble of creating
> > good documentation here in this post.
>
> I'm so used to writing emails, and I *like* trying to explain what is
> going on, so I have no problems at all doing that kind of thing. However,
> trying to write a manual or man-page or other technical documentation is
> something rather different.
>
> IOW, I like explaining git within the _context_ of a discussion or a
> particular problem/issue. But documentation should work regardless of
> context (or at least set it up), and that's the part I am not so good at.
>
> In other words, if somebody (hint hint) thinks my explanation was good and
> readable, I'd love for them to try to turn it into real documentation by
> editing it up and creating enough context for it! But I'm nort personally
> very likely to do that. I'd just send Junio the patch to remove a
> misleading part of the documentation we have.

hehe.. I'd love to, actually.  I can work on it next week.

Re: Git and GCC

[Jon Loeliger]

On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Git also does delta-chains, but it does them a lot more "loosely". There 
> is no fixed entity. Delta's are generated against any random other version 
> that git deems to be a good delta candidate (with various fairly 
> successful heursitics), and there are absolutely no hard grouping rules.

I'd like to learn more about that.  Can someone point me to
either more documentation on it?  In the absence of that,
perhaps a pointer to the source code that implements it?

I guess one question I posit is, would it be more accurate
to think of this as a "delta net" in a weighted graph rather
than a "delta chain"?

Thanks,
jdl

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Git also does delta-chains, but it does them a lot more "loosely". There 
> > is no fixed entity. Delta's are generated against any random other version 
> > that git deems to be a good delta candidate (with various fairly 
> > successful heursitics), and there are absolutely no hard grouping rules.
> 
> I'd like to learn more about that.  Can someone point me to
> either more documentation on it?  In the absence of that,
> perhaps a pointer to the source code that implements it?

Well, in a very real sense, what the delta code does is:
 - just list every single object in the whole repository
 - walk over each object, trying to find another object that it can be 
   written as a delta against
 - write out the result as a pack-file

That's simplified: we may not walk _all_ objects, for example: only a 
global repack does that (and most pack creations are actually for pushign 
and pulling between two repositories, so we only walk the objects that are 
in the source but not the destination repository).

The interesting phase is the "walk each object, try to find a delta" part. 
In particular, you don't want to try to find a delta by comparing each 
object to every other object out there (that would be O(n^2) in objects, 
and with a fairly high constant cost too!). So what it does is to sort the 
objects by a few heuristics (type of object, base name that object was 
found as when traversing a tree and size, and how recently it was found in 
the history).

And then over that sorted list, it tries to find deltas between entries 
that are "close" to each other (and that's where the "--window=xyz" thing 
comes in - it says how big the window is for objects being close. A 
smaller window generates somewhat less good deltas, but takes a lot less 
effort to generate).

The source is in git/builtin-pack-objects.c, with the core of it being

 - try_delta() - try to generate a *single* delta when given an object 
   pair.

 - find_deltas() - do the actual list traversal

 - prepare_pack() and type_size_sort() - create the delta sort list from 
   the list of objects.

but that whole file is probably some of the more opaque parts of git.

> I guess one question I posit is, would it be more accurate
> to think of this as a "delta net" in a weighted graph rather
> than a "delta chain"?

It's certainly not a simple chain, it's more of a set of acyclic directed 
graphs in the object list. And yes, it's weigted by the size of the delta 
between objects, and the optimization problem is kind of akin to finding 
the smallest spanning tree (well, forest - since you do *not* want to 
create one large graph, you also want to make the individual trees shallow 
enough that you don't have excessive delta depth).

There are good algorithms for finding minimum spanning trees, but this one 
is complicated by the fact that the biggest cost (by far!) is the 
calculation of the weights itself. So rather than really worry about 
finding the minimal tree/forest, the code needs to worry about not having 
to even calculate all the weights!

(That, btw, is a common theme. A lot of git is about traversing graphs, 
like the revision graph. And most of the trivial graph problems all assume 
that you have the whole graph, but since the "whole graph" is the whole 
history of the repository, those algorithms are totally worthless, since 
they are fundamentally much too expensive - if we have to generate the 
whole history, we're already screwed for a big project. So things like 
revision graph calculation, the main performance issue is to avoid having 
to even *look* at parts of the graph that we don't need to see!)

			Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Jakub Narebski]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Loeliger wrote:

>> I guess one question I posit is, would it be more accurate
>> to think of this as a "delta net" in a weighted graph rather
>> than a "delta chain"?
> 
> It's certainly not a simple chain, it's more of a set of acyclic directed 
> graphs in the object list. And yes, it's weigted by the size of the delta 
> between objects, and the optimization problem is kind of akin to finding 
> the smallest spanning tree (well, forest - since you do *not* want to 
> create one large graph, you also want to make the individual trees shallow 
> enough that you don't have excessive delta depth).
> 
> There are good algorithms for finding minimum spanning trees, but this one 
> is complicated by the fact that the biggest cost (by far!) is the 
> calculation of the weights itself. So rather than really worry about 
> finding the minimal tree/forest, the code needs to worry about not having 
> to even calculate all the weights!
> 
> (That, btw, is a common theme. A lot of git is about traversing graphs, 
> like the revision graph. And most of the trivial graph problems all assume 
> that you have the whole graph, but since the "whole graph" is the whole 
> history of the repository, those algorithms are totally worthless, since 
> they are fundamentally much too expensive - if we have to generate the 
> whole history, we're already screwed for a big project. So things like 
> revision graph calculation, the main performance issue is to avoid having 
> to even *look* at parts of the graph that we don't need to see!)

Hmmm...

I think that these two problems (find minimal spanning forest with
limited depth and traverse graph) with the additional constraint to
avoid calculating weights / avoid calculating whole graph would be
a good problem to present at CompSci course.

Just a thought...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: Git and GCC

[Junio C Hamano]

Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:

> On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>> Git also does delta-chains, but it does them a lot more "loosely". There 
>> is no fixed entity. Delta's are generated against any random other version 
>> that git deems to be a good delta candidate (with various fairly 
>> successful heursitics), and there are absolutely no hard grouping rules.
>
> I'd like to learn more about that.  Can someone point me to
> either more documentation on it?  In the absence of that,
> perhaps a pointer to the source code that implements it?

See Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt,
but the document predates and does not talk about delta
reusing, which was covered here:

    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/16223/focus=16267

> I guess one question I posit is, would it be more accurate
> to think of this as a "delta net" in a weighted graph rather
> than a "delta chain"?

Yes.

Re: Git and GCC

[Junio C Hamano]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:
>
>> I'd like to learn more about that.  Can someone point me to
>> either more documentation on it?  In the absence of that,
>> perhaps a pointer to the source code that implements it?
>
> See Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt,

A somewhat funny thing about this is ...

$ git show --stat --summary b116b297
commit b116b297a80b54632256eb89dd22ea2b140de622
Author: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
Date:   Thu Mar 2 19:19:29 2006 -0600

    Added Packing Heursitics IRC writeup.
    
    Signed-off-by: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
    Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

 Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt |  466 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 files changed, 466 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt

Re: Git and GCC

[David Kastrup]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:
>>
>>> I'd like to learn more about that.  Can someone point me to
>>> either more documentation on it?  In the absence of that,
>>> perhaps a pointer to the source code that implements it?
>>
>> See Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt,
>
> A somewhat funny thing about this is ...
>
> $ git show --stat --summary b116b297
> commit b116b297a80b54632256eb89dd22ea2b140de622
> Author: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
> Date:   Thu Mar 2 19:19:29 2006 -0600
>
>     Added Packing Heursitics IRC writeup.

Ah, fishing for compliments.  The cookie baking season...

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

[OT] Re: Git and GCC

[Randy Dunlap]

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:26:07 +0100 David Kastrup wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> >
> >> Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I'd like to learn more about that.  Can someone point me to
> >>> either more documentation on it?  In the absence of that,
> >>> perhaps a pointer to the source code that implements it?
> >>
> >> See Documentation/technical/pack-heuristics.txt,
> >
> > A somewhat funny thing about this is ...
> >
> > $ git show --stat --summary b116b297
> > commit b116b297a80b54632256eb89dd22ea2b140de622
> > Author: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
> > Date:   Thu Mar 2 19:19:29 2006 -0600
> >
> >     Added Packing Heursitics IRC writeup.
> 
> Ah, fishing for compliments.  The cookie baking season...

Indeed.  Here are some really good & sweet recipes (IMHO).

http://www.xenotime.net/linux/recipes/


---
~Randy
Features and documentation: http://lwn.net/Articles/260136/

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

I fought with this a few months ago when I did my own clone of gcc svn.
My bad for only discussing this on #git at the time.  Should have put
this to the list as well.

If anyone recalls my report was something along the lines of
git gc --aggressive explodes pack size.

git repack -a -d --depth=100 --window=100 produced a ~550MB packfile
immediately afterwards a git gc --aggressive produces a 1.5G packfile.

This was for all branches/tags, not just trunk like Daniel's repo.

The best theory I had at the time was that the gc doesn't find as good
deltas or doesn't allow the same delta chain depth and so generates a 
new object in the pack, rather the reusing a good delta it already has
in the well-packed pack.

Cheers,

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> 
> If anyone recalls my report was something along the lines of
> git gc --aggressive explodes pack size.

Yes, --aggressive is generally a bad idea. I think we should remove it or 
at least fix it. It doesn't do what the name implies, because it actually 
throws away potentially good packing, and re-does it all from a clean 
slate.

That said, it's totally pointless for a person who isn't a git proponent 
to do an initial import, and in that sense I agree with Daniel: he 
shouldn't waste his time with tools that he doesn't know or care about, 
since there are people who *can* do a better job, and who know what they 
are doing, and understand and like the tool.

While you can do a half-assed job with just mindlessly running "git 
svnimport" (which is deprecated these days) or "git svn clone" (better), 
the fact is, to do a *good* import does likely mean spending some effort 
on it. Trying to make the user names / emails to be better with a mailmap, 
for example. 

[ By default, for example, "git svn clone/fetch" seems to create those 
  horrible fake email addresses that contain the ID of the SVN repo in 
  each commit - I'm not talking about the "git-svn-id", I'm talking about 
  the "user@hex-string-goes-here" thing for the author. Maybe people don't 
  really care, but isn't that ugly as hell? I'd think it's worth it doing 
  a really nice import, spending some effort on it.

  But maybe those things come from the older CVS->SVN import, I don't 
  really know. I've done a few SVN imports, but I've done them just for 
  stuff where I didn't want to touch SVN, but just wanted to track some 
  project like libgpod. For things like *that*, a totally mindless "git 
  svn" thing is fine ]

Of course, that does require there to be git people in the gcc crowd who 
are motivated enough to do the proper import and then make sure it's 
up-to-date and hosted somewhere. If those people don't exist, I'm not sure 
there's much idea to it.

The point being, you cannot ask a non-git person to do a major git import 
for an actual switch-over. Yes, it *can* be as simple as just doing a

	git svn clone --stdlayout svn://svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc gcc

but the fact remains, you want to spend more effort and expertise on it if 
you actually want the result to be used as a basis for future work (as 
opposed to just tracking somebody elses SVN tree).

That includes:

 - do the historic import with good packing (and no, "--aggressive" 
   is not it, never mind the misleading name and man-page)

 - probably mailmap entries, certainly spending some time validating the 
   results.

 - hosting it

and perhaps most importantly

 - helping people who are *not* git users get up to speed.

because doing a good job at it is like asking a CVS newbie to set up a 
branch in CVS. I'm sure you can do it from man-pages, but I'm also sure 
you sure as hell won't like the end result.

		Linus

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > 
> > If anyone recalls my report was something along the lines of
> > git gc --aggressive explodes pack size.

> [ By default, for example, "git svn clone/fetch" seems to create those 
>   horrible fake email addresses that contain the ID of the SVN repo in 
>   each commit - I'm not talking about the "git-svn-id", I'm talking about 
>   the "user@hex-string-goes-here" thing for the author. Maybe people don't 
>   really care, but isn't that ugly as hell? I'd think it's worth it doing 
>   a really nice import, spending some effort on it.
> 
>   But maybe those things come from the older CVS->SVN import, I don't 
>   really know. I've done a few SVN imports, but I've done them just for 
>   stuff where I didn't want to touch SVN, but just wanted to track some 
>   project like libgpod. For things like *that*, a totally mindless "git 
>   svn" thing is fine ]
> 

git svn does accept a mailmap at import time with the same format as the
cvs importer I think.  But for someone that just wants a repo to check
out this was easiest.  I'd be willing to spend the time to do a nicer
job if there was any interest from the gcc side, but I'm not that
invested (other than owing them for an often-used tool).

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Andreas Schwab]

Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> writes:

> git svn does accept a mailmap at import time with the same format as the
> cvs importer I think.  But for someone that just wants a repo to check
> out this was easiest.  I'd be willing to spend the time to do a nicer
> job if there was any interest from the gcc side, but I'm not that
> invested (other than owing them for an often-used tool).

I have a complete list of the uid<->mail mapping for the gcc repository.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Git and GCC

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 10:52 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > git svn does accept a mailmap at import time with the same format as the
> > cvs importer I think.  But for someone that just wants a repo to check
> > out this was easiest.  I'd be willing to spend the time to do a nicer
> > job if there was any interest from the gcc side, but I'm not that
> > invested (other than owing them for an often-used tool).
> 
> I have a complete list of the uid<->mail mapping for the gcc repository.
> 
> Andreas.
> 

Feel free to send it along, but for now I'll keep on going without a
mapping.  If I went back now and changed it, all those people who
are already using the existing mirror will have to download a
whole new history.

If gcc decides they would like a more clean import for more official
use I'd be more than happy to work with you guys to produce a more
clean import with Author/commiter names cleaned up, etc.

Cheers,

Harvey

Re: Git and GCC

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:

> From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin@dberlin.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 21:41:19 -0500
> 
> > It is true I gave up quickly, but this is mainly because i don't like 
> > to fight with my tools.
> >
> > I am quite fine with a distributed workflow, I now use 8 or so gcc 
> > branches in mercurial (auto synced from svn) and merge a lot between 
> > them. I wanted to see if git would sanely let me manage the commits 
> > back to svn.  After fighting with it, i gave up and just wrote a 
> > python extension to hg that lets me commit non-svn changesets back to 
> > svn directly from hg.
> 
> I find it ironic that you were even willing to write tools to facilitate 
> your hg based gcc workflow.  That really shows what your thinking is on 
> this matter, in that you're willing to put effort towards making hg work 
> better for you but you're not willing to expend that level of effort to 
> see if git can do so as well.

While this is true...

> This is what really eats me from the inside about your dissatisfaction 
> with git.  Your analysis seems to be a self-fullfilling prophecy, and 
> that's totally unfair to both hg and git.

... I actually appreciate people complaining -- in the meantime.  It shows 
right away what group you belong to in the "Those who can do, do, those 
who can't, complain.".

You can see that very easily on the git list, or on the #git channel on 
irc.freenode.net.  There is enough data for a study which yearns to be 
written, that shows how quickly we resolve issues with people that are 
sincerely interested in a solution.

(Of course, on the other hand, there are also quite a few cases which show 
how frustrating (for both sides) and unfruitful discussions started by a 
complaint are.)

So I fully expect an issue like Daniel's to be resolved in a matter of 
minutes on the git list, if the OP gives us a chance.  If we are not even 
Cc'ed, you are completely right, she or he probably does not want the 
issue to be resolved.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Git and GCC

[Ismail Dönmez]

Thursday 06 December 2007 13:57:06 Johannes Schindelin yazmıştı:
[...]
> So I fully expect an issue like Daniel's to be resolved in a matter of
> minutes on the git list, if the OP gives us a chance.  If we are not even
> Cc'ed, you are completely right, she or he probably does not want the
> issue to be resolved.

Lets be fair about this, Ollie Wild already sent a mail about git-svn disk 
usage and there is no concrete solution yet, though it seems the bottleneck 
is known.

Regards,
ismail


-- 
Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.

Re: Git and GCC

[J.C. Pizarro]

On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> later, it finished.
> The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> just trunk.
>
> dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
> total 1568899
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx
>
> This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
> repacking every so often.
> The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones
>
> I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could
> use to make it smaller.
>
> I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may
> even be usable!
>
> But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get
> any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any
> advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc.
>
> I already have two way sync with hg.
> Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer,
> or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it
> again.
> For now, it seems a net loss.
>
> --Dan
> >
> > git clone --depth 100 git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
> >
> > should give around ~50mb repository with usable trunk. This is all thanks to
> > Bernardo Innocenti for setting up an up-to-date gcc git repo.
> >
> > P.S:Please cut down on the usage of exclamation mark.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ismail
> >
> > --
> > Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.
> >

To see "Re: svn trunk reaches nearly 1 GiB!!! That massive!!!"

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00805.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00770.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00769.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00768.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00767.html

On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday)
> The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions.
> After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune.  Two hours
> later, it finished.
> The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for
> just trunk.
>
> dberlin@home:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl
> total 1568899
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack
> -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin   19008488 2007-12-05 14:01
> pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx
>
> This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life
> repacking every so often.
> The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones
>
> I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could
> use to make it smaller.
>
> I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may
> even be usable!
>
> But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get
> any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any
> advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc.
>
> I already have two way sync with hg.
> Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer,
> or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it
> again.
> For now, it seems a net loss.
>
> --Dan
> >
> > git clone --depth 100 git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git
> >
> > should give around ~50mb repository with usable trunk. This is all thanks to
> > Bernardo Innocenti for setting up an up-to-date gcc git repo.
> >
> > P.S:Please cut down on the usage of exclamation mark.
> >
> > Regards,
> > ismail
> >
> > --
> > Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again.
> >

To see "Re: svn trunk reaches nearly 1 GiB!!! That massive!!!"

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00805.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00770.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00769.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00768.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00767.html

* In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00675.html , i did put

The generated files from flex/bison are a lot of "trashing hexadecimals" that
don't must to be commited to any cvs/svn/git/hg because it consumes
a lot of diskspace for only a modification of few lines of flex/bison sources.

* In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00683.html , i did put

I hate considering temporary files as sources of the tree. They aren't sources.

It's good idea to remove ALL generated files from sources:

A) generated *.c, *.h from lex/bison sources *.l/*.y
B) generated not-handwritten configure, makefile, aclocal.m4, config.h.in,
     makefile.in from the configure.ac and makefile.am sources.
      [the handwritten configure and makefile have to be rewritten to *.ac/*.am]
C) generated binary objects *.class, *.o, *.a, *.so, ...
D) generated *.c, *.h, *.cpp, *.hpp,  ... from *.java
E) any generated from any available source by available tool.

The only exception is when the project need a bootstrapping system.

See to understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_build_system easy!

So, the cvs/svn/git/hg repositories of sources will be "small and clean"
without "trashing generated files, hexadecimals, ..."

This recommendation is an advantage to navigate by web to clean
cvs/svn/git/hg repositories. In another case, it's an inconvenient.

   J.C.Pizarro

Re: Git and GCC

[J.C. Pizarro]

On 2007/12/07, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > Also I could end up being performance limited by SHA, it's not very
> > well tuned on Sparc.  It's been on my TODO list to code up the crypto
> > unit support for Niagara-2 in the kernel, then work with Herbert Xu on
> > the userland interfaces to take advantage of that in things like
> > libssl.  Even a better C/asm version would probably improve GIT
> > performance a bit.
>
> I doubt yu can use the hardware support. Kernel-only hw support is
> inherently broken for any sane user-space usage, the setup costs are just
> way way too high. To be useful, crypto engines need to support direct user
> space access (ie a regular instruction, with all state being held in
> normal registers that get saved/restored by the kernel).
>
> > Is SHA a significant portion of the compute during these repacks?
> > I should run oprofile...
>
> SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But we
> have a good optimized version there.

If SHA1 is slow then why dont he contribute adding Haval160 (3 rounds)
that it's faster than SHA1? And to optimize still more it with SIMD instructions
in kernelspace and userland.

>
> zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: it
> may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that it
> totally dominates).
>
> 			Linus

It's better

1.   "Don't compress this repo but compact this uncompressed repo
      using minimal spanning forest and deltas"
2.   "After, compress this whole repo with LZMA (e.g. 48MiB) from 7zip before
      burning it to DVD for backup reasons or before replicating it to
internet".

   J.C.Pizarro "the noiser"

Re: Git and GCC

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:

> On 2007/12/07, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But 
> > we have a good optimized version there.
> 
> If SHA1 is slow then why dont he contribute adding Haval160 (3 rounds) 
> that it's faster than SHA1? And to optimize still more it with SIMD 
> instructions in kernelspace and userland.

He said SHA-1 is insignificant.

> > zlib tends to be a lot more noticeable (especially the uncompression: 
> > it may be faster than compression, but it's done _so_ much more that 
> > it totally dominates).
> 
> It's better
> 
> 1.   "Don't compress this repo but compact this uncompressed repo
>       using minimal spanning forest and deltas"
> 2.   "After, compress this whole repo with LZMA (e.g. 48MiB) from 7zip before
>       burning it to DVD for backup reasons or before replicating it to
>	internet".

Patches? ;-)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: Git and GCC

[Joe Buck]

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
> > 1.   "Don't compress this repo but compact this uncompressed repo
> >       using minimal spanning forest and deltas"
> > 2.   "After, compress this whole repo with LZMA (e.g. 48MiB) from 7zip before
> >       burning it to DVD for backup reasons or before replicating it to
> >	internet".

On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 12:24:00PM +0000, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Patches? ;-)

git list, meet J.C. Pizarro.  Care to take him off of our hands for
a while?  He's been hanging on the gcc list for some time, and perhaps
seeks new horizons.

Mr. Pizarro has endless ideas, and he'll give you some new ones every day.
He thinks that no one else knows any computer science, and he will attempt
to teach you what he knows, and tell you to rewrite all of your code based
on something he read and half-understood.  But he's not interested in
actually DOING the work, mind you; that's up to you.  When you object
that he's wasting your time, he'll start talking about freedom of speech.

Re: Git and GCC

[Marco Costalba]

On Dec 8, 2007 8:53 PM, Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.com> wrote:
>
> Mr. Pizarro has endless ideas, and he'll give you some new ones every day.

That's true.

> He thinks that no one else knows any computer science, and he will attempt
> to teach you what he knows,

It's not the only one ;-) is in good and numerous company.

>  But he's not interested in
> actually DOING the work, mind you; that's up to you.

Where did have you read this ? I missed that part.

>  When you object
> that he's wasting your time, he'll start talking about freedom of speech.
>

Actually he never spoke like that (probably I missed that part too).


Thanks
Marco

Re: Git and GCC

[Daniel Berlin]

>
> Where did have you read this ? I missed that part.
>
> >  When you object
> > that he's wasting your time, he'll start talking about freedom of speech.
> >
>
> Actually he never spoke like that (probably I missed that part too).
>
>

Read gcc mailing list archives, if you have a lot of time on your hands.

Re: Git and GCC

[Nix]

On 8 Dec 2007, Johannes Schindelin said:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 8 Dec 2007, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
>
>> On 2007/12/07, "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> > SHA1 is almost totally insignificant on x86. It hardly shows up. But 
>> > we have a good optimized version there.
>> 
>> If SHA1 is slow then why dont he contribute adding Haval160 (3 rounds) 
>> that it's faster than SHA1? And to optimize still more it with SIMD 
>> instructions in kernelspace and userland.
>
> He said SHA-1 is insignificant.

Actually davem also said it *is* significant on SPARC. But of course
J. C. Pizarro's suggested solution won't work because you can't just go
around replacing SHA-1 in git with something else :) you could *add* new
hashing methods, but you couldn't avoid SHA-1, and adding a new hashing
method would bloat every object and every hash in objects like commits
with an indication of which hashing method was in use.

(But you know this.)

>> 1.   "Don't compress this repo but compact this uncompressed repo
>>       using minimal spanning forest and deltas"

... and then you do a git-gc. Oops, now what?

... or perhaps you want to look something up in the pack. Now you have to
unpack a large hunk of the whole damn thing.

>> 2.   "After, compress this whole repo with LZMA (e.g. 48MiB) from 7zip before
>>       burning it to DVD for backup reasons or before replicating it to
>>	internet".
>
> Patches? ;-)

Replicating a pack to the internet is almost invariably replicating
*parts* of a pack anyway, which reduces to the problem with option 1
above...

-- 
`The rest is a tale of post and counter-post.' --- Ian Rawlings
                                                   describes USENET