On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 3:24 PM, David Turner <novalis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-02-08 at 13:45 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 8:03 AM, David Turner <novalis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Sat, 2016-12-17 at 14:50 +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> >> And we can't grep for fatal errors anyway. The problem that led to >> >> 329e6e8794 was this line >> >> >> >> warning: There are too many unreachable loose objects; run 'git >> >> prune' to remove them. >> >> >> >> which is not fatal. >> > >> > So, speaking of that message, I noticed that our git servers were >> > getting slow again and found that message in gc.log. >> > >> > I propose to make auto gc not write that message either. Any objections? >> >> Does that really help? auto gc would run more often, but unreachable >> loose objects are still present and potentially make your servers >> slow? Should these servers run periodic and explicit gc/prune? > > At least pack files wouldn't accumulate. This is the major cause of > slowdown, since each pack file must be checked for each object. > > (And, also, maybe those unreachable loose objects are too new to get > gc'd, but if we retry next week, we'll gc them). I was about to suggest a config option that lets you run auto gc unconditionally, which, I think, is better than suppressing the message. Then I found gc.autoDetach. If you set it to false globally, I think you'll get the behavior you want. On second thought, perhaps gc.autoDetach should default to false if there's no tty, since its main point it to stop breaking interactive usage. That would make the server side happy (no tty there). -- Duy