On Thu, 17 May 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > Still... I wonder if this could be actually workable. A typical daily > > update on the Linux kernel repository might consist of a couple hundreds > > or a few tousands objects. This could still be faster to fetch parts of > > a pack than the whole pack if the size difference is above a certain > > treshold. It is certainly not worse than fetching loose objects. > > > > Things would be pretty horrid if you think of fetching a commit object, > > parsing it to find out what tree object to fetch, then parse that tree > > object to find out what other objects to fetch, and so on. > > > > But if you only take the approach of fetching the pack index files, > > finding out about the objects that the remote has that are not available > > locally, and then fetching all those objects from within pack files > > without even looking at them (except for deltas), then it should be > > possible to issue a couple requests in parallel and possibly have decent > > performances. And if it turns out that more than, say, 70% of a > > particular pack is to be fetched (you can determine that up front), then > > it might be decided to fetch the whole pack. > > > > There is no way to sensibly keep those objects packed on the receiving > > end of course, but storing them as loose objects and repacking them > > afterwards should be just fine. > > > > Of course you'll get objects from branches in the remote repository you > > might not be interested in, but that's a price to pay for such a hack. > > On average the overhead shouldn't be that big anyway if branches within > > a repository are somewhat related. > > > > I think this is something worth experimenting. > > I am a bit wary about that, because it is so complex. IMHO a cgi which > gets, say, up to a hundred refs (maybe something like ref~0, ref~1, ref~2, > ref~4, ref~8, ref~16, ... for the refs), and then makes a bundle for that > case on the fly, is easier to do. And if you have 1) the permission and 2) the CPU power to execute such a cgi on the server and obviously 3) the knowledge to set it up properly, then why aren't you running the Git daemon in the first place? After all, they both boil down to running git-pack-objects and sending out the result. I don't think such a solution really buys much. On the other hand, if the client does all the work and provides the server with a list of ranges within a pack it wants to be sent, then you simply have zero special setup to perform on the hosting server and you keep the server load down due to not running pack-objects there. That, at least, is different enough from the Git daemon to be worth considering. Not only does it provide an advantage to those who cannot do anything but http out of their segregated network, but it also provide many advantages on the server side too while the cgi approach doesn't. And actually finding out the list of objects the remote has that you don't have is not that complex. It could go as follows: 1) Fetch every .idx files the remote has. 2) From those .idx files, keep only a list of objects that are unknown locally. A good starting point for doing this really efficiently is the code for git-pack-redundant. 3) From the .idx files we got in (1), create a reverse index to get each object's size in the remote pack. The code to do this already exists in builtin-pack-objects.c. 4) With the list of missing objects from (2) along with their offset and size within a given pack file, fetch those objects from the remote server. Either perform multiple requests in parallel, or as someone mentioned already, provide the server with a list of ranges you want to be sent. 5) Store the received objects as loose objects locally. If a given object is a delta, verify if its base is available locally, or if it is listed amongst those objects to be fetched from the server. If not, add it to the list. In most cases, delta base objects will be objects already listed to be fetched anyway. To greatly simplify things, the loose delta object type from 2 years ago could be revived (commit 91d7b8afc2) since a repack will get rid of them. 6 Repeat (4) and (5) until everything has been fetched. 7) Run git-pack-objects with the list of fetched objects. Et voilà. Oh, and of course update your local refs from the remote's. Actually there is nothing really complex in the above operations. And with this the server side remains really simple with no special setup nor extra load beyond the simple serving of file content. Nicolas
