From: Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 20:25:02 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: git lazy clone proof-of-concept
Message-ID: <1202502302.12966.32.camel@brick>
In-Reply-To: <9e4733910802081224k28310b0cj171453c96802ec7f@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 15:24 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On 2/8/08, Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 14:26 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > > On 2/8/08, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Jan Holesovsky <kendy@suse.cz> writes:
> > > > One of the reasons why 'lazy clone' was not implemented was the fact
> > > > that by using large enough window, and larger than default delta
> > > > length you can repack "archive pack" (and keep it from trying to
> > > > repack using .keep files, see git-config(1)) much tighter than with
> > > > default (time and CPU conserving) options, and much, much tighter than
> > > > pack which is result of fast-import driven import.
> > > >
> > > > Both Mozilla import, and GCC import were packed below 0.5 GB. Warning:
> > > > you would need machine with large amount of memory to repack it
> > > > tightly in sensible time!
> > >
> > > A lot of memory is 2-4GB. Without this much memory you will trigger
> > > swapping and the pack process will finish in about a month.
> >
> > Well, my modest little Celeron M laptop w/ 1GB of ram did the full
> > repack overnight on the gcc repo, so a month is a bit of an
> > exaggeration.
> 
> Try it again with window=250 and depth=250. That's how you get the
> really small packs.
> 

Yes, I know, and I did if you remember back to the gcc discussion.

Harvey