Re: "disabling bitmap writing, as some objects are not being packed"?

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Feb 8, 2017, 19:08 UTC
Message-ID: <20170208190858.rjoqehbhyizlwg5q@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <1486580742.1938.52.camel@novalis.org>

On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 02:05:42PM -0500, David Turner wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 09:44 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > On second thought, perhaps gc.autoDetach should default to false if
> > > there's no tty, since its main point it to stop breaking interactive
> > > usage. That would make the server side happy (no tty there).
> > 
> > Sounds like an idea, but wouldn't that keep the end-user coming over
> > the network waiting after accepting a push until the GC completes, I
> > wonder.  If an impatient user disconnects, would that end up killing
> > an ongoing GC?  etc.
> 
> Regardless, it's impolite to keep the user waiting. So, I think we
> should just not write the "too many unreachable loose objects" message
> if auto-gc is on.  Does that sound OK?

I thought the point of that message was to prevent auto-gc from kicking in over and over again due to objects that won't actually get pruned.

I wonder if you'd want to either bump the auto-gc object limit, or possibly reduce the gc.pruneExpire limit to keep this situation from coming up in the first place (or at least mitigating the amount of time it's the case).

-Peff