Re: Keeping unreachable objects in a separate pack instead of loose?
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jun 12, 2012, 17:10 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20120612171048.GB12706@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <alpine.LFD.2.02.1206112024110.23555@xanadu.home>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:41:03PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:14:39PM -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote: > > > > > 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. > > To make it "safe", the cruft packs would have to be searchable for > object retrieval, but not during object creation. That nuance would > affect the core code in subtle ways and I'm not sure if that would be > worth it ... just for the safe handling of cruft.
Why is that? If you do a "repack -Ad", then any referenced objects will have been retrieved and put into the new all-in-one pack. At that point, by deleting the cruft pack, you are guaranteed to be deleting only objects that are either unreferenced, or are duplicated in another pack.
-Peff