Hi Andy, On Wednesday 02 May 2007 12:58, 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). > > 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 > 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? Unfortunately I don't have the _exact_ numbers here any more so I cannot prove it ;-) - but this is a rounding problem [CVS checkout is slightly more than 1.4G]. Similarly, overhead of of CVS directories is 0 when we count in gigabytes. > - 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. Yes, this surprises me as well. I've heard about some improvements in the recent SVN, but 0.1M sounds very small. > - If it is not, then we're back to "I don't believe that git was packed" It was, IIRC with 'git-repack -a -d -f'. > Something smells fishy here - either the source tree size is included in > some, but not in others or the git repository wasn't packed. As I wrote, I am looking forward to seeing the SVN tree myself for further testing. Regards, Jan - 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