RE: [PATCH] [RFC] Making use of bitmaps for thin objects

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



It looks like for my repo the size win wasn't as big (~10%). Is it possible that with the kernel test you got extremely lucky and there was some huge binary blob that thin packing turned into a tiny delta?

The repo I'm testing with here isn't a typical codebase -- it is used to store configuration information and it has very different update patterns than most codebases.

When you get a chance, it'd be handy if you could push an updated version of your change out to your public github repo. I'd like to see if folks here are interested in testing this more, and it'd be good to make sure we're testing the diff that is targeted for upstream.

Bitmap index, without thin packing:

Counting objects: 158825, done.
Delta compression using up to 32 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (18113/18113), done.
Writing objects: 100% (158825/158825), 89.87 MiB | 11.23 MiB/s, done.
Total 158825 (delta 139493), reused 153076 (delta 135730)
real 15.60
user 34.38
sys 2.99


Bitmap index, with thin packing:

Counting objects: 158825, done.
Delta compression using up to 32 threads.
Compressing objects: 100% (12364/12364), done.
Writing objects: 100% (158825/158825), 81.35 MiB | 0 bytes/s, done.
Total 158825 (delta 135730), reused 158825 (delta 141479)
real 2.70
user 2.28
sys 0.65


________________________________________
From: Jeff King [peff@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 1:57 PM
To: Ben Maurer
Cc: git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Making use of bitmaps for thin objects

On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 09:15:04PM +0000, Ben Maurer wrote:

> > Let me know how this patch does for you. My testing has been fairly
> > limited so far.
>
> This patch looks like a much cleaner version :-). Works well for me,
> but my test setup may not be great since I didn't get any errors from
> completely ignoring the haves bitmap :-).

Great. Out of curiosity, can you show the before/after? The timings
should be similar to what your patch produced, but I'm really curious to
see how the pack size changes.

-Peff
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]