On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Björn Steinbrink wrote:

> On 2009.04.07 14:56:41 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git;a=summary
> 
> At least that's what I cloned ;-) I hope it's the right one, but it fits
> the description...

OK.  FWIW, I repacked it with --window=250 --depth=250 and obtained a 
725MB pack file.  So that's about half the originally reported size.


Nicolas