Re: Keeping unreachable objects in a separate pack instead of loose?
- From
Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
- Date
- Jun 11, 2012, 22:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120611222843.GF21775@thunk.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <20120611222308.GA10476@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:23:08PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> > I'm more specifically worried about large objects which are no better in > packs than they are in loose form (e.g., video files). This strategy is > a regression, since we are not saving space by putting them in a pack, > but we are keeping them around much longer. It also makes it harder to > just run "git prune" to get rid of large objects (since prune will never > kill off a pack), or to manually delete files from the object database. > You have to run "git gc --prune=now" instead, so it can make a new pack > and throw away the old bits (or run "git repack -ad").
If we're really worried about this, we could set a threshold and only pack small objects in the cruft packs.
Show 9 quoted lines
> > One last thought: if a sysadmin is really hard up for space, (and if > > the cruft objects include some really big sound or video files) one > > advantage of labelling the cruft packs explicitly is that someone who > > really needs the space could potentially find the oldest cruft files > > and delete them, since they would be tagged for easy findability. > > No! That's exactly what I was worried about with the name. It is _not_ > safe to do so. It's only safe after you have done a full repack to > rescue any non-cruft objects.
Well, yes. I was thinking it would be safe thing to do after a "git gc" didn't result in enough space savings. This would require that a git repack always rescue objects from cruft packs even if the -a/-A options are not specified, but since we're doing a full reachability scan, that should slow down git gc much, right?
- Ted