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