Re: git-index-pack really does suck..

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

 



On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dana How wrote:

Larger and larger pack files make me nervous.
They are expensive to manipulate,
and >2GB requires a file format change.

It sometimes also requires a new filesystem. There are a lot of
filesystems that can handle more than 4GB total, but not necessarily in a
single file.

The only really useful such filesystem is probably FAT, which is still
quite useful for things like USB memory sticks. But that is probably
already worth supporting.

So I think we want to support 64-bit (or at least something like 40+ bit)
pack-files, but yes, I think that even if/when we support it, we still
want to support the "multiple smaller pack-files" schenario exactly
because for some uses it's much *better* to have ten 2GB packfiles rather
than one 20GB pack-file.

however, for historical archives you may end up with wanting to do a 2GB packfile of 'recent' stuff, and a 14GB packfile of 'ancient' stuff (with the large one built with all space-saving options turned up all the way, no matter how much time it takes to build the pack)

David Lang
-
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]