From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Neeraj Singh <nksingh85@gmail.com>
Cc: "Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
Git List <git@vger.kernel.org>,
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>,
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>,
Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"Randall S. Becker" <rsbecker@nexbridge.com>,
Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>,
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>,
"Neeraj K. Singh" <neerajsi@microsoft.com>,
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/9] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:02:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <220310.86lexilo3d.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <211201.864k7sbdjt.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 01 2021, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17 2021, Neeraj Singh wrote:
>
> [Very late reply, sorry]
>
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 11:28 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>> <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 16 2021, Neeraj Singh wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 12:10 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
>>> > <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Nov 15 2021, Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > * Per [2], I'm leaving the fsyncObjectFiles configuration as is with
>>> >> > 'true', 'false', and 'batch'. This makes using old and new versions of
>>> >> > git with 'batch' mode a little trickier, but hopefully people will
>>> >> > generally be moving forward in versions.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > [1] See
>>> >> > https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1067.git.1635287730.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
>>> >> > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqh7cimuxt.fsf@gitster.g/
>>> >>
>>> >> I really think leaving that in-place is just being unnecessarily
>>> >> cavalier. There's a lot of mixed-version environments where git is
>>> >> deployed in, and we almost never break the configuration in this way (I
>>> >> think in the past always by mistake).
>>> >
>>> >> In this case it's easy to avoid it, and coming up with a less narrow
>>> >> config model[1] seems like a good idea in any case to unify the various
>>> >> outstanding work in this area.
>>> >>
>>> >> More generally on this series, per the thread ending in [2] I really
>>> >
>>> > My primary goal in all of these changes is to move git-for-windows over to
>>> > a default of batch fsync so that it can get closer to other platforms
>>> > in performance
>>> > of 'git add' while still retaining the same level of data integrity.
>>> > I'm hoping that
>>> > most end-users are just sticking to defaults here.
>>> >
>>> > I'm happy to change the configuration schema again if there's a
>>> > consensus from the Git
>>> > community that backwards-compatibility of the configuration is
>>> > actually important to someone.
>>> >
>>> > Also, if we're doing a deeper rethink of the fsync configuration (as
>>> > prompted by this work and
>>> > Eric Wong's and Patrick Steinhardts work), do we want to retain a mode
>>> > where we fsync some
>>> > parts of the persistent repo data but not others? If we add fsyncing
>>> > of the index in addition to the refs,
>>> > I believe we would have covered all of the critical data structures
>>> > that would be needed to find the
>>> > data that a user has added to the repo if they complete a series of
>>> > git commands and then experience
>>> > a system crash.
>>>
>>> Just talking about it is how we'll find consensus, maybe you & Junio
>>> would like to keep it as-is. I don't see why we'd expose this bad edge
>>> case in configuration handling to users when it's entirely avoidable,
>>> and we're still in the design phase.
>>
>> After trying to figure out an implementation, I have a new proposal,
>> which I've shared on the other thread [1].
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/CANQDOdcdhfGtPg0PxpXQA5gQ4x9VknKDKCCi4HEB0Z1xgnjKzg@mail.gmail.com/
>
> This LGTM, or something simpler as Junio points out with his "too
> fine-grained?" comment as a follow-up. I'm honestly quite apathetic
> about what we end up with exactly as long as:
>
> 1. We get the people who are adding these config settings to talk & see if they make
> sense in combination.
>
> 2. We avoid the trap of hard dying on older versions.
>
>>>
>>> >> don't get why we have code like this:
>>> >>
>>> >> @@ -503,10 +504,12 @@ static void unpack_all(void)
>>> >> if (!quiet)
>>> >> progress = start_progress(_("Unpacking objects"), nr_objects);
>>> >> CALLOC_ARRAY(obj_list, nr_objects);
>>> >> + plug_bulk_checkin();
>>> >> for (i = 0; i < nr_objects; i++) {
>>> >> unpack_one(i);
>>> >> display_progress(progress, i + 1);
>>> >> }
>>> >> + unplug_bulk_checkin();
>>> >> stop_progress(&progress);
>>> >>
>>> >> if (delta_list)
>>> >>
>>> >> As opposed to doing an fsync on the last object we're
>>> >> processing. I.e. why do we need the step of intentionally making the
>>> >> objects unavailable in the tmp-objdir, and creating a "cookie" file to
>>> >> sync at the start/end, as opposed to fsyncing on the last file (which
>>> >> we're writing out anyway).
>>> >>
>>> >> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/211110.86r1bogg27.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
>>> >> 2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/20211111000349.GA703@neerajsi-x1.localdomain/
>>> >
>>> > It's important to not expose an object's final name until its contents
>>> > have been fsynced
>>> > to disk. We want to ensure that wherever we crash, we won't have a
>>> > loose object that
>>> > Git may later try to open where the filename doesn't match the content
>>> > hash. I believe it's
>>> > okay for a given OID to be missing, since a later command could
>>> > recreate it, but an object
>>> > with a wrong hash looks like it would persist until we do a git-fsck.
>>>
>>> Yes, we handle that rather badly, as I mentioned in some other threads,
>>> but not doing the fsync on the last object v.s. a "cookie" file right
>>> afterwards seems like a hail-mary at best, no?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not quite grasping what you're saying here. Are you saying that
>> using a dummy
>> file instead of one of the actual objects is less likely to produce
>> the desired outcome
>> on actual filesystem implementations?
>
> [...covered below...]
>
>>> > I thought about figuring out how to sync the last object rather than some random
>>> > "cookie" file, but it wasn't clear to me how I'd figure out which
>>> > object is actually last
>>> > from library code in a way that doesn't burden each command with
>>> > somehow figuring
>>> > out its last object and communicating that. The 'cookie' approach
>>> > seems to lead to a cleaner
>>> > interface for callers.
>>>
>>> The above quoted code is looping through nr_objects isn't it? Can't a
>>> "do fsync" be passed down to unpack_one() when we process the last loose
>>> object?
>>
>> Are you proposing that we do something different for unpack_objects
>> versus update_index
>> and git-add? I was hoping to keep all of the users of the batch fsync
>> functionality equivalent.
>> For the git-add workflow and update-index, we'd need to track the most
>> recent file so that we
>> can go back and fsync it. I don't believe that syncing the last
>> object composes well with the existing
>> implementation of those commands.
>
> There's probably cases where we need the cookie. I just mean instead of
> the API being (as seen above in the quoted part), pseudocode:
>
> # A
> bulk_checkin_start_make_cookie():
> n = 10
> for i in 1..n:
> write_nth(i, fsync: 0);
> bulk_checkin_end_commit_cookie();
>
> To have it be:
>
> # B
> bulk_checkin_start(do_cookie: 0);
> n = 10
> for i in 1..n:
> write_nth(i, fsync: (i == n));
> bulk_checkin_end();
>
> Or actually, presumably simpler as:
>
> # C
> all_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? 0 : fsync_turned_on_in_general();
> end_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? 1 : all_fsync;
> n = 10;
> for i in 1..n:
> write_nth(i, fsync: (i == n) ? end_fsync : all_fsync);
>
> I.e. maybe there are cases where you really do need "A", but we're
> usually (always?) writing out N objects, and we usually know it at the
> same point where you'd want the plug_bulk_checkin/unplug_bulk_checkin,
> so just fsyncing the last object/file/ref/whatever means we don't need
> the whole ceremony of the cookie file.
>
> I don't mind it per-se, but "B" and "C" just seem a lot simpler,
> particulary since as those examples show we'll presumably want to pass
> down a "do fsync?" to these in general, and we even usually have a
> display_progress() in there.
>
> So doesn't just doing "B" or "C" eliminate the need for a cookie
> entirely?
>
> Another advantage of that is that you'll presumably want such tracking
> anyway even for the case of "A".
>
> Because as soon as you have say a batch operation of writing X objects
> and Y refs you'd want to track this anyway. I.e. either only fsync() on
> the ref write (particularly if there's just the one ref), or on the last
> ref, or for each ref and no object syncs. So this (like "C", except for
> the "do_batch" in the "end_fsync" case):
>
> # D
> do_batch = in_existing_bulk_checkin() ? 1 : 0;
> all_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? 0 : fsync_turned_on_in_general();
> end_fsync = bulk_checkin_mode() ? do_batch : all_fsync;
> n = 10;
> for i in 1..n:
> write_nth(i, fsync: (i == n) ? end_fsync : all_fsync);
>
> I mean, usually we'd want the "all refs", I'm just thinking of a case
> like "git fast-import" or other known-to-the-user batch operation.
>
> Or, as in the case of my 4bc1fd6e394 (pack-objects: rename .idx files
> into place after .bitmap files, 2021-09-09) we'd want to know that we're
> writing all of say *.bitmap, *.rev where we currently fsync() all of
> them, write *.bitmap, *.rev and *.pack (not sure that one is safe)
> without fsync(), and then only fsync (or that and in-place move) the
> *.idx.
Replying to an old-ish E-Mail of mine with some more thought that came
to mind after[1] (another recently resurrected fsync() thread).
I wonder if there's another twist on the plan outlined in [2] that would
be both portable & efficient, i.e. the "slow" POSIX way to write files
A..Z is to open/write/close/fsync each one, so we'll trigger a HW flush
N times.
And as we've discussed, doing it just on Z will implicitly flush A..Y on
common OS's in the wild, which we're taking advantage of here.
But aside from the rename() dance in[2], what do those OS's do if you
write A..Z, fsync() the "fd" for Z, and then fsync A..Y (or, presumably
equivalently, in reverse order: Y..A).
I'd think they'd be smart enough to know that they already implicitly
flushed that data since Z was flushend, and make those fsync()'s a
rather cheap noop.
But I don't know, hence the question.
If that's true then perhaps it's a path towards having our cake and
eating it too in some cases?
I.e. an FS that would flush A..Y if we flush Z would do so quickly and
reliably, whereas a FS that doesn't have such an optimization might be
just as slow for all of A..Y, but at least it'll be safe.
1. https://lore.kernel.org/git/220309.867d93lztw.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com/
2. https://lore.kernel.org/git/e1747ce00af7ab3170a69955b07d995d5321d6f3.1637020263.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-09 23:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 160+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-25 1:51 [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Implement a bulk-checkin option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-25 1:51 ` [PATCH 1/2] object-file: use futimes rather than utime Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-25 13:51 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-08-25 22:08 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-08-25 1:51 ` [PATCH 2/2] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batch disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-25 5:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-25 17:40 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-08-26 5:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-25 16:11 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-08-26 0:49 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-08-26 5:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-28 0:20 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-08-28 6:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-31 19:59 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-01 5:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-26 5:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-08-25 18:52 ` Johannes Schindelin
2021-08-25 21:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-08-26 1:19 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-08-25 16:58 ` [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] Implement a bulk-checkin option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj Singh
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Implement a batched fsync " Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] object-file: use futimens rather than utime Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-08-27 23:49 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-07 19:44 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj Singh
2021-09-07 19:50 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-07 19:54 ` Randall S. Becker
2021-09-08 0:54 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-08 1:22 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-08 14:04 ` Randall S. Becker
2021-09-08 19:01 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-08 0:55 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-08 6:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-08 6:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-08 13:57 ` Randall S. Becker
2021-09-08 14:13 ` 'Christoph Hellwig'
2021-09-08 14:25 ` Randall S. Becker
2021-09-08 16:34 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-08 19:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-08 19:20 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-08 19:23 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 " Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-14 10:39 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-09-14 19:05 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-14 19:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-14 20:33 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-15 4:55 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-14 19:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-14 3:38 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: enable batch mode for testing Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-15 16:21 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-15 22:43 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-15 23:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-16 6:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-14 5:49 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Christoph Hellwig
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 " Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 1/6] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 2/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-21 23:16 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-22 1:23 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-22 2:02 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-22 19:46 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 3/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-21 23:42 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-22 1:23 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 4/6] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-21 23:46 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-22 1:27 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-23 22:32 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 5/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: tests for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-21 23:54 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-22 1:30 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-22 1:58 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-22 17:55 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-22 20:01 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-09-20 22:15 ` [PATCH v4 6/6] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] object-file.c: do not rename in a temp odb Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 21:47 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 21:49 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] unpack-objects: " Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 6/7] core.fsyncobjectfiles: tests for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 20:12 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:31 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj Singh
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 0/8] " Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 1/8] object-file.c: do not rename in a temp odb Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 2/8] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 3/8] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-25 3:15 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-09-27 0:27 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 4/8] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-27 20:07 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-27 20:55 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-27 21:03 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-27 23:53 ` Junio C Hamano
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 5/8] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 6/8] unpack-objects: " Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 7/8] core.fsyncobjectfiles: tests for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-24 23:53 ` [PATCH v6 8/8] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 0/9] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 1/9] object-file.c: do not rename in a temp odb Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:55 ` Jeff King
2021-09-29 0:10 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 2/9] tmp-objdir: new API for creating temporary writable databases Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-29 8:41 ` Elijah Newren
2021-09-29 16:40 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 3/9] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 4/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 5/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 6/9] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 7/9] unpack-objects: " Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 8/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: tests for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH v7 9/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 0/9] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 1/9] tmp-objdir: new API for creating temporary writable databases Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 2/9] tmp-objdir: disable ref updates when replacing the primary odb Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 3/9] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 4/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 5/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 6/9] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 7/9] unpack-objects: " Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 8/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: tests for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-10-04 16:57 ` [PATCH v8 9/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:50 ` [PATCH v9 0/9] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Neeraj K. Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:50 ` [PATCH v9 1/9] tmp-objdir: new API for creating temporary writable databases Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-30 21:27 ` Elijah Newren
2021-11-30 21:52 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-11-30 22:36 ` Elijah Newren
2021-11-15 23:50 ` [PATCH v9 2/9] tmp-objdir: disable ref updates when replacing the primary odb Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-16 7:23 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-16 20:38 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-11-15 23:50 ` [PATCH v9 3/9] bulk-checkin: rename 'state' variable and separate 'plugged' boolean Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:50 ` [PATCH v9 4/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: batched disk flushes Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:50 ` [PATCH v9 5/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: add windows support for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:51 ` [PATCH v9 6/9] update-index: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:51 ` [PATCH v9 7/9] unpack-objects: " Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:51 ` [PATCH v9 8/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: tests for batch mode Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-15 23:51 ` [PATCH v9 9/9] core.fsyncobjectfiles: performance tests for add and stash Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget
2021-11-16 8:02 ` [PATCH v9 0/9] Implement a batched fsync option for core.fsyncObjectFiles Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-17 7:06 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-11-17 7:24 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2021-11-18 5:03 ` Neeraj Singh
2021-12-01 14:15 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-09 23:02 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [this message]
2022-03-10 1:16 ` Neeraj Singh
2022-03-10 14:01 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2022-03-10 17:52 ` Neeraj Singh
2022-03-10 18:08 ` rsbecker
2022-03-10 18:43 ` Neeraj Singh
2022-03-10 18:48 ` rsbecker
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=220310.86lexilo3d.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com \
--to=avarab@gmail.com \
--cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \
--cc=bagasdotme@gmail.com \
--cc=e@80x24.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jeffhost@microsoft.com \
--cc=neerajsi@microsoft.com \
--cc=newren@gmail.com \
--cc=nksingh85@gmail.com \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
--cc=rsbecker@nexbridge.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).