On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 7:26 PM, Sergio <sergio.callegari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Avery Pennarun <apenwarr <at> gmail.com> writes: >> But why not use a .gitattributes filter to recompress the zip/odp file >> with no compression, as I suggested? Then you can just dump the whole >> thing into git directly. When you change the file, only the changes >> need to be stored thanks to delta compression. Unless your >> presentation is hundreds of megs in size, git should be able to handle >> that just fine already. > > Actually, I'm doing so... But in some occasions odf file that share many > components do not delta, even when passed through a filter that uncompresses > them. Multiblobs are like taking advantage of a known structure to get better > deltas. Hmm, it might be a good idea to investigate the specific reasons why that's not working. Fixing it may be easier (and help more people) than introducing a whole new infrastructure for these multiblobs. >> But then you're digging around inside the pdf file by hand, which is a >> lot of pdf-specific work that probably doesn't belong inside git. > > I perfectly agree that git should not know about the inner structure of things > like PDFs, Zips, Tars, Jars, whatever. But having an infrastructure allowing > multiblobs and attributes like clean/smudge to trigger creation and use of > multiblobs with user provided split/unsplit drivers could be nice. Yes, it could. Sorry to be playing the devil's advocate :) >> Worse, because compression programs don't always produce the same >> output, this operation would most likely actually *change* the hash of >> your pdf file as you do it. > > This should depend on the split/unsplit driver that you write. If your driver > stores a sufficient amount of metadata about the streams and their order, you > should be able to recreate the original file. Almost. The one thing you can't count on replicating reliably is compression. If you use git-zlib the first time, and git-zlib the second time with the same settings, of course the results will be identical each time. But if the original file used Acrobat-zlib, and your new one uses git-zlib, the most likely situation is the files will be functionally identical but not the same stream of bytes, and that could be a problem. (Then again, maybe it's not a problem in some use cases.) Another danger of this method is that different versions of git may have slightly different versions of zlib that compress slightly differently. In that case, you'd (rather surprisingly) end up with different output files depending which version of git you use to check them out. Maybe that's manageable, though. >> In what way? I doubt you'd get more efficient storage, at least. >> Git's deltas are awfully hard to beat. > > Using the known structure of the file, you automatically identify the bits that > are identical and you save the need to find a delta altogether. bup avoids the need to find a delta altogether. This isn't entirely a good thing; it's a necessity because it processes huge amounts of data and doing deltas across it all would be ungodly slow. However, in all my tests (except with massively self-redundant files like VMware images) deltas are at least somewhat smaller than bup deduplication. This isn't surprising, since deltas can eliminate duplication on a byte-by-byte level, while bup chunks have a much larger threshold (around 8k). So I question the idea that this method would actually save any space over git's existing deltas. CPU time, yes, but only really during gc, and you can run gc overnight while you're not waiting for it. >> In that case, I'd like to see some comparisons of real numbers >> (memory, disk usage, CPU usage) when storing your openoffice documents >> (using the .gitattributes filter, of course). I can't really imagine >> how splitting the files into more pieces would really improve disk >> space usage, at least. > > I'll try to isolate test cases, making test repos: > > a) with 1 odf file changing a little on each checkin > b) the same storing the odf file with no compression with a suitable filter > c) the same storing the tree inside the odf file. This sounds like it would be quite interesting to see. I would also be interested in d) the test from (b) using bup instead of git. You might also want to compare results with 'git gc' vs. 'git gc --aggressive'. >> Having done some tests while writing bup, my experience has been that >> chunking-without-deltas is great for these situations: >> 1) you have the same data shared across *multiple* files (eg. the same >> images in lots of openoffice documents with different filenames); >> 2) you have the same data *repeated* in the same file at large >> distances (so that gzip compression doesn't catch it; eg. VMware >> images) >> 3) your file is too big to work with the delta compressor (eg. VMware images). > > An aside: bup is great!!! Thanks! Glad you like it :) Have fun, Avery -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html