On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Björn Steinbrink wrote:

> On 2009.04.07 13:48:02 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > The first low hanging fruit to help this case is to make upload-pack use 
> > the --revs argument with pack-object to let it do the object enumeration 
> > itself directly, instead of relying on the rev-list output through a 
> > pipe.  This is what 'git repack' does already.  pack-objects has to 
> > access the pack anyway, so this would eliminate an extra access from a 
> > different process.
> 
> Hm, for an initial clone that would end up as:
> git pack-objects --stdout --all
> right?
> 
> If so, that doesn't look it it's going to work out as easily as one
> would hope. Robin said that both processes, git-upload-pack (which does
> the rev-list) and pack-objects peaked at ~2GB of RSS (which probably
> includes the mmapped packs). But the above pack-objects with --all peaks
> at 3.1G here, so it basically seems to keep all the stuff in memory that
> the individual processes had. But this way, it's all at once, not 2G
> first and then 2G in a second process, after the first one exitted.

Right, and it is probably faster too.

Can I get a copy of that repository somewhere?


Nicolas