On 5/3/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Dana How" <danahow@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So for a 25% increase in blob size I get 33% less elapsed time > in git-add, all by changing core.compression from -1 to 1. > I'll definitely take that improvement. [For the compressible files > we typically have, using 0 is a bad idea: the CPU "advantage" > is swamped out by the time to write a much larger file.] The above number is about loose objects, right?
Correct.
> Since I don't care [to the same degree] about the responsiveness of > packing, I'd rather pack with -1 or better to keep packs small. I see. You are saying that the fact that core.compression is used also for packing makes the variable less useful.
Exactly.
I agree that it would make sense to have at least the pack and core compression independent. I am not sure if we would also want to make the pack compression tweakable depending on the purpose of the packing (network transfer vs .git/objects/pack/).
The final 12-line hunk in the patch implements --pack-compression=N. To be blunt, I'm not sure *I* need it. Perhaps a high-use web-accessible public repository would be interested in repacking off-line with 9, and creating packs for each puller using -1 to reduce CPU load. In the latter case, due to builtin-pack-objects.c:write_object():to_reuse==1, much of the transferred data would still be at the better compression but without again paying the CPU cost. Shall I remove it? BTW, I'm now in the habit of browsing Git's Gitweb at git.or.cz and notice "pu" has --max-pack-size. You may want to upgrade to the last 5-patch version in which --max-pack-size no longer forces --no-reuse-delta at Shawn's request, among other clean-ups. Thanks, -- Dana L. How danahow@xxxxxxxxx +1 650 804 5991 cell - 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