From: David Turner <novalis@novalis.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:05:20 GMT
Subject: Re: Simultaneous gc and repack
Message-ID: <1492110320.1527.84.camel@novalis.org>
In-Reply-To: <1553777.vJallt5N6j@mfick1-lnx>

On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 12:36 -0600, Martin Fick wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 02:28:07 PM David Turner wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 12:08 -0600, Martin Fick wrote:
> > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 11:03:14 AM Jacob Keller 
> 
> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 10:31 AM, David Turner 
> > > 
> > > <novalis@novalis.org> wrote:
> > > > > Git gc locks the repository (using a gc.pid file) so
> > > > > that other gcs don't run concurrently. But git
> > > > > repack
> > > > > doesn't respect this lock, so it's possible to have
> > > > > a
> > > > > repack running at the same time as a gc.  This makes
> > > > > the gc sad when its packs are deleted out from under
> > > > > it
> > > > > with: "fatal: ./objects/pack/pack-$sha.pack cannot
> > > > > be
> > > > > accessed".  Then it dies, leaving a large temp file
> > > > > hanging around.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does the following seem reasonable?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 1. Make git repack, by default, check for a gc.pid
> > > > > file
> > > > > (using the same logic as git gc itself does).
> > > > > 2. Provide a --force option to git repack to ignore
> > > > > said
> > > > > check. 3. Make git gc provide that --force option
> > > > > when
> > > > > it calls repack under its own lock.
> > > > 
> > > > What about just making the code that calls repack
> > > > today
> > > > just call gc instead? I guess it's more work if you
> > > > don't
> > > > strictly need it but..?
> > > 
> > > There are many scanerios where this does not achieve
> > > the 
> > > same thing.  On the obvious side, gc does more than 
> > > repacking, but on the other side, repacking has many 
> > > switches that are not available via gc.
> > > 
> > > Would it make more sense to move the lock to repack
> > > instead  of to gc?
> > 
> > Other gc operations might step on each other too (e.g.
> > packing refs). That would be less bad (and less common),
> > but it still seems worth avoiding.
> 
> Yes, but all of thsoe operations need to be self protected 
> already, or they risk the same issue.

They are  individually protected.  But I would rather fail fast.  And
I'm not sure what happens if git prune happens during a git repack -a;
might the repack fail if an object that it expects to pack is pruned
out from under it?