From: "Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>,
Sverre Rabbelier <srabbelier@gmail.com>,
david@lang.hm, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Nicolas Sebrecht <nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net>,
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>,
Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:41:12 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090411134112.GA1673@atjola.homenet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904101806340.4583@localhost.localdomain>
On 2009.04.10 18:15:26 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> It obviously goes on top of my previous patch.
Gives some nice results for the "rev-list --all --objects" test on the
gentoo repo says (with the old pack):
| With my patch | With your patch on top
-----|---------------|-----------------------
VSZ | 1667952 | 1319324
RSS | 1388408 | 1126080
time | 1:48.99 | 1:42.24
Testing a full repack, it feels slower during the "Compressing objects"
part, but I don't have any hard numbers on that, and maybe I've just
been more patient the last week, when I did the first repack on that
repo. I can just tell that it took about 13 minutes for the "Compressing
objects" part, and 18 minutes in total, on my Core 2 Quad 2.83GHz with
4G of RAM.
The new pack is slightly worse than the old one (window=250, --depth=250):
Old: 759662467
New: 759720234
But that's seems totally negligible, and at least the performance of the
(stupid) rev-list test is not affected by the different pack layout.
Björn
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-11 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 97+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-04 22:07 Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 0:05 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 0:37 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 3:54 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 4:08 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 7:04 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 19:02 ` Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 19:17 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-05 23:02 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 20:43 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 21:08 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-05 21:28 ` david
2009-04-05 21:36 ` Sverre Rabbelier
2009-04-06 3:24 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 8:10 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 9:45 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-04-07 13:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 13:37 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-04-07 14:03 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-07 17:59 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 14:21 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 17:48 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 18:12 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-07 18:56 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 20:27 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-08 4:52 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-10 20:38 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-11 1:58 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-11 7:06 ` Mike Hommey
2009-04-14 15:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-14 20:17 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-14 20:27 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-14 21:02 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-15 3:09 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2009-04-15 5:53 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-15 5:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-15 11:51 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 1:15 ` Sam Vilain
2009-04-22 9:55 ` Mike Ralphson
2009-04-22 11:24 ` Pieter de Bie
2009-04-22 13:19 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-22 14:35 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-22 16:40 ` Andreas Ericsson
2009-04-22 17:06 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-23 19:30 ` Christian Couder
2009-04-22 14:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 22:01 ` Sam Vilain
2009-04-22 22:50 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-22 23:07 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-22 23:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-23 3:16 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-14 20:30 ` Johannes Schindelin
2009-04-07 20:29 ` Jeff King
2009-04-07 20:35 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-08 11:28 ` [PATCH] process_{tree,blob}: Remove useless xstrdup calls Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-10 22:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 0:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 1:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 1:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-11 13:41 ` Björn Steinbrink [this message]
2009-04-11 14:07 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 18:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 18:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 19:22 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 20:50 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 21:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 23:24 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 18:19 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-11 19:40 ` Björn Steinbrink
2009-04-11 19:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-04-05 22:59 ` Performance issue: initial git clone causes massive repack Nicolas Sebrecht
2009-04-05 23:20 ` david
2009-04-05 23:28 ` Robin Rosenberg
2009-04-06 3:34 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 5:15 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-04-06 13:12 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 13:52 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 14:19 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:37 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 14:48 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2009-04-06 15:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 15:28 ` Jon Smirl
2009-04-06 16:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 11:22 ` Matthieu Moy
2009-04-06 13:29 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:03 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-06 14:14 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-07 10:11 ` Martin Langhoff
2009-04-05 19:57 ` Jeff King
2009-04-05 23:38 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-05 23:42 ` Robin H. Johnson
[not found] ` <0015174c150e49b5740466d7d2c2@google.com>
2009-04-06 0:29 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-06 3:10 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy
2009-04-06 4:09 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 4:06 ` Nicolas Pitre
2009-04-06 14:20 ` Robin H. Johnson
2009-04-11 17:24 ` Mark Levedahl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090411134112.GA1673@atjola.homenet \
--to=b.steinbrink@gmx.de \
--cc=david@lang.hm \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=jnareb@gmail.com \
--cc=nico@cam.org \
--cc=nicolas.s-dev@laposte.net \
--cc=robbat2@gentoo.org \
--cc=srabbelier@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.