Hi, On Thu, 17 May 2007, Jan Hudec wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2007 at 10:41:37 -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > 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. > > Yes, it does. I had 2 accounts where I could run CGI, but not separate > server, at university while I studied and now I can get the same on > friend's server. Neither of them would probably be ok for serving larger > busy git repository, but something smaller accessed by several people is > OK. I think this is quite common for university students. 1) This has nothing to do with the way the repo is served, but how much you advertise it. The load will not be lower, just because you use a CGI script. 2) you say yourself that git-daemon would have less impact on the load: > > [...] > > > > 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. > > On the other hand the amount of data transfered is larger, than with the > git server approach, because at least the indices have to be transfered > in entirety. Ciao, Dscho
