Re: [PATCH 4/5] multi-pack-index: prepare 'repack' verb

From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Date: Dec 11, 2018, 12:45 UTC
Message-ID: <931d481e-8b9f-0f1f-e455-10111ec7b0dc@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGZ79kaNJ8=iCunkeeHnMcOwFik9D-V4g9o7SuvLnnM0vvfBnA@mail.gmail.com>

On 12/10/2018 8:54 PM, Stefan Beller wrote:

Show 48 quoted lines

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 10:06 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
>> From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com>
>>
>> In an environment where the multi-pack-index is useful, it is due
>> to many pack-files and an inability to repack the object store
>> into a single pack-file. However, it is likely that many of these
>> pack-files are rather small, and could be repacked into a slightly
>> larger pack-file without too much effort. It may also be important
>> to ensure the object store is highly available and the repack
>> operation does not interrupt concurrent git commands.
>>
>> Introduce a 'repack' verb to 'git multi-pack-index' that takes a
>> '--batch-size' option. The verb will inspect the multi-pack-index
>> for referenced pack-files whose size is smaller than the batch
>> size, until collecting a list of pack-files whose sizes sum to
>> larger than the batch size. Then, a new pack-file will be created
>> containing the objects from those pack-files that are referenced
>> by the multi-pack-index. The resulting pack is likely to actually
>> be smaller than the batch size due to compression and the fact
>> that there may be objects in the pack-files that have duplicate
>> copies in other pack-files.
> This highlights an optimization problem: How do we pick the
> batches optimally?
> Ideally we'd pick packs that have an overlap of many
> same objects to dedup them completely, next best would
> be to have objects that are very similar, such that they delta
> very well.
> (Assuming that the sum of the resulting pack sizes is a metric
> we'd want to optimize for eventually)
>
> For now it seems we just take a random cut of "small" packs.
>
>> The current change introduces the command-line arguments, and we
>> add a test that ensures we parse these options properly. Since
>> we specify a small batch size, we will guarantee that future
>> implementations do not change the list of pack-files.
> This is another clever trick that makes the test correct
> despite no implementation yet. :-)
>
>> +repack::
>> +       When given as the verb, collect a batch of pack-files whose
>> +       size are all at most the size given by --batch-size,
> okay.
>
>>   but
>> +       whose sizes sum to larger than --batch-size.
> or less if there are not enough packs.

If there are not enough packs to reach the batch size, then we do nothing.

> Now it would be interesting if we can specify an upper bound
> (e.g. my laptop has 8GB of ram, can I use this incremental
> repacking optimally by telling git to make batches of at most
> 7.5G), the answer seems to follow...

Well, this gets us to the "unsigned long" problem and how it pervades the OPT_MAGNITUDE() code and things that use that kind of parameter. This means that Windows users can specify a maximum of (1 << 32) - 1. This size is intended to be large enough to make a reasonable change in the pack organization without rewriting the entire repo (e.g. 1GB). If there is another word than "repack" that means "collect objects from a subset of pack-files and place them into a new pack-file, doing a small amount of redeltification in the process" then I am open to suggestions.

I tried (briefly) to fix this dependence, but it got too large for me to handle at the same time as this change. I'll consider revisiting it again later.

Show 15 quoted lines

>>    The batch is
>> +       selected by greedily adding small pack-files starting with
>> +       the oldest pack-files that fit the size. Create a new pack-
>> +       file containing the objects the multi-pack-index indexes
>> +       into thos pack-files, and rewrite the multi-pack-index to
> those
>
>> +       contain that pack-file. A later run of 'git multi-pack-index
>> +       expire' will delete the pack-files that were part of this
>> +       batch.
> ... but the optimization seems to be rather about getting rid
> of the oldest packs first instead of getting as close to the batch
> size. (e.g. another way to look at this is to "find the permutation
> of all packs that (each are smaller than batch size), but in sum
> are the smallest threshold above the batch size).

You are describing the subset-sum problem, with an additional optimization component. While there are dynamic programming approaches that are usually effective (if the sum is small), this problem is NP-complete, and hence could lead to complications.

> I guess that the strategy of picking the oldest is just easiest
> to implement and should be sufficient for now, but memory
> bounds might be interesting to keep in mind, just as the
> optimal packing from above.

It is easy to implement, and fast. Further, we do have a heuristic that the pack modified time correlates with the time the objects were introduced to the repository and hence may compress well when placed together.

Thanks,

-Stolee