Re: [RFC] repack vs re-clone

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Feb 11, 2008, 20:44 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0802111542000.2732@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <200802112051.27271.jnareb@gmail.com>

On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Jakub Narebski wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> Marco Costalba wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 2008 7:45 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > So it happens to be just faster to re-clone the whole thing by upstream.
> > >
> > > So what you are doing is passing the work, unnecessary work I'd say,
> > > to some poor server. Not nice.
> > 
> > To a poor net bandwidth I would say because cloning from zero just
> > downloads the packages.
> 
> Cloning from zero over http, https and rsync (and ftp) just downloads
> the packfiles. Cloning over git or ssh if I understand correctly[*1*]
> generates single pack for transfer. And that generates load for server.

The created pack will always reuse existing deltas, so the load is more about making sure the sent pack contains only needed objects for the required branch -- something that dumb protocols cannot do.

Nicolas