From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85769 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2019 05:50:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 85761 invoked by uid 89); 19 Dec 2019 05:50:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Received:1b78, H*c:alternative, savings X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:50:22 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1576734620; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VVVfyTPYQD+FdHKVn1/x4xdcvQ62KGQ0kPA08+VxeNI=; b=alTLS4Fc0DjZ1Ea1xrNSQhn7n27JunlPYv/1b3Agd1wmgICpIfebj06ekzSFQn/L3zOztE UW+hHZv/2UknoUUiozUHho7oV6laEHoZhMLIxh9isTfTuh29Y56M8jXYH10rQ9C57ZfVoC lICaIe+RfwtudfPPsa/o9uL6UCpf0vA= Received: from mail-oi1-f199.google.com (mail-oi1-f199.google.com [209.85.167.199]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-14-3mH_G6jWMH2FXEhasqb38A-1; Thu, 19 Dec 2019 00:50:18 -0500 Received: by mail-oi1-f199.google.com with SMTP id e22so2294119oig.1 for ; Wed, 18 Dec 2019 21:50:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jason Merrill Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:50:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Test GCC conversion with reposurgeon available To: Joseph Myers Cc: gcc Mailing List , Eric Raymond X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00299.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 1:17 PM Joseph Myers wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:39 PM Joseph Myers > > wrote: > > > > > Points for consideration: > > > > > > 1. Do we want some kind of rearrangement of refs as in the 1b > > > repository or not? > > > > > > > Maybe? How much space does that save in a clone? How much work does a > > partial clone add on the server, since the server needs to pack up the > > objects for the partial clone rather than just transmitting its own > packs? > > I haven't measured work on the server, and timing individual clones is > liable to a lot of variation from variable load there, but for a single > clone --mirror of the 1b repository (so all refs, including refs/deleted/) > I got > > real 13m16.473s > user 16m45.429s > sys 0m33.901s > > and 1360 MB objects directory, but for a clone without --mirror (so only a > limited subset of refs and the server needing to build a pack) > > real 15m5.554s > user 12m11.771s > sys 0m26.914s > > and 950 MB objects directory. Adding the objects from the existing > git-svn mirror (presumably also under refs not fetched by default) > increases repository size by about 300 MB, based on a previous test of > doing that (most blob and tree objects will be shared between the two > versions of the history, but all the commit objects are separate). > So a 30% space savings; that's pretty significant. Though I wonder how much of that is refs/dead and refs/deleted, which seem unnecessary to carry over to git at all. I wonder if it would make sense to put them in a separate repository that refers to the main gcc.git? Jason