On Wed, 2 May 2007, Andy Parkins wrote:
On Wednesday 2007 May 02, Julian Phillips wrote:
A fully packed clone of the OOo git repo was indeed 1.3G, and the entrire
checkout + repo was indeed 8.5G (using git 1.5.1.2).
oops, meant 2.7G not 8.5G there ... sorry, was working from memory.
jp3@electron: ooo(unxsplash)>du -sh .git
1.3G .git
jp3@electron: ooo(unxsplash)>du -sh .
2.7G .
jp3@electron: ooo(unxsplash)>ls .git/objects/
info pack
I'm more confused now then. I assumed the figures were accurate, but they
cannot be:
CVS git SVN
Size of data on the server 8.5G 1.3G n/a
Size of checkout 1.4G 2.8G 1.5G
I don't doubt the 1.3G on the server - and assume that is fully packed. The
checkout sizes are suspicious though. Is that 2.8G packed?
- If it is, then we can deduce that this is a repo+source size, since the
server is packed size+0 therefore the size of the source tree is
2.8G - 1.3G = 1.5G
the difference between 2.7G and 2.8G may be due to filesystem difference?
In which case the other figures are wrong:
- CVS checkout is 1.4G - impossible, the source tree is 1.5G. And where is
the overhead of the CVS directories which would make it more than 1.5G?
- SVN checkout overhead is always _at least_ the size of the source tree
because it keeps a pristine copy of HEAD. If the source tree is 1.5G,
then this figure should be at least 3G.
I was wondering about the subversion figures too ...
- If it is not, then we're back to "I don't believe that git was packed"
Something smells fishy here - either the source tree size is included in some,
but not in others or the git repository wasn't packed.
1.3G is the packed size ...
jp3@electron: ooo(unxsplash)>ls -sh .git/objects/pack/
total 1.3G
37M pack-87efcac9bcb117328e8a1b0c1b42c88c3603c5b7.idx
1.2G pack-87efcac9bcb117328e8a1b0c1b42c88c3603c5b7.pack
--
Julian
---
To err is humor.
-
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