On Sun, Mar 08, 2015 at 05:21:22PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > Kevin D <me@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 01:30:07AM +0000, Ken Moffat wrote: > >> Hi, please CC me if that is not your usual fashion, because I am not > >> subscribed. > >> > >> I use git for my build scripts - those are accessed over nfs. Since > >> I started using 2.1 and later (I don't think I used 2.0) commands > >> such as 'commit' take a long time before anything happens. I > >> assumed that the newer version meant this would take longer. > >> > >> But today^Wyesterday I was bisecting the kernel on a local > >> filesystem - even when the number of revisions left to test was in > >> the single digits, git bisect took a long time to decide which > >> revision should be the next one to test. The filesystems are ext4. > >> Is this sort of delay normal now? > >> > >> What really prompted me to ask is that I ran git blame on a script, > >> to see when I made a particular change so that I could add that > >> information to a ticket, and almost gave up waiting because it felt > >> as if it was taking for ever. > >> > > > > What kind of repository are we talking about? How many files, how big? > > Git should not have become significantly slower recently. > > Particularly not git-blame in 2.1. I should be quite surprised to see > any git-blame call running noticeably slower in 2.1 than in any > preceding version. > > What may have happened is that the repository recently got repacked > aggressively and thus any access to older revisions got slower. > However, that change would be mostly tied to the repository rather than > the version of Git you access it with. > That is possible - well, not recently-recently, but I might have repacked my repo of buildscripts some time last year. Running ls -al .git in that repository gives me: drwxr-xr-x 8 ken 100 4096 Mar 8 16:08 . drwxr-xr-x 48 ken 100 4096 Mar 8 03:05 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 220 May 12 2014 BRANCH_DESCRIPTION drwxr-xr-x 2 ken 100 4096 Apr 13 2010 branches -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 470 Mar 8 16:08 COMMIT_EDITMSG -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 566 May 17 2014 config -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 73 May 1 2010 description -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 196439 Sep 17 21:56 gitk.cache -rw-rw-rw- 1 ken 100 29 Feb 8 22:19 HEAD drwxr-xr-x 2 ken 100 4096 May 1 2010 hooks -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 218255 Mar 8 16:07 index drwxr-xr-x 2 ken 100 4096 Sep 16 2013 info drwxr-xr-x 3 ken 100 4096 Sep 16 2013 logs drwxr-xr-x 260 ken 100 4096 Nov 12 2013 objects -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 41 Nov 11 06:05 ORIG_HEAD -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 1879 Sep 16 2013 packed-refs drwxr-xr-x 5 ken 100 4096 May 20 2014 refs -rw-r--r-- 1 ken 100 41 Dec 7 2010 RENAMED-REF Running git blame on a script which dates back to when the repo was created takes between 5 and 6 seconds to show the first screen, running it on a file first created last August took about 3 seconds. I have another small repo also on nfs with only a few files, started last year, and there git blame takes about a second. In my clone of linus' tree, running git blame scripts/headers.sh (a random example,I do not normally run git blame there) took 10 seconds to return the first screen. All of those timings are from preparing the comand, watching my desktop clock until it changes the second, and hitting enter - so, only accurate to approx one second. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- 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