Hi!
Here are some stats from the repository. First the fast import ones (which had
good performance, but probably all cached, also):
% git fast-import <../git-stream
/usr/lib/git/git-fast-import statistics:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloc'd objects: 55000
Total objects: 51959 ( 56 duplicates )
blobs : 47991 ( 0 duplicates 0 deltas of
0 attempts)
trees : 3946 ( 56 duplicates 994 deltas of
3929 attempts)
commits: 22 ( 0 duplicates 0 deltas of
0 attempts)
tags : 0 ( 0 duplicates 0 deltas of
0 attempts)
Total branches: 15 ( 15 loads )
marks: 1048576 ( 48013 unique )
atoms: 43335
Memory total: 9611 KiB
pools: 7033 KiB
objects: 2578 KiB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
pack_report: getpagesize() = 4096
pack_report: core.packedGitWindowSize = 1073741824
pack_report: core.packedGitLimit = 8589934592
pack_report: pack_used_ctr = 1780
pack_report: pack_mmap_calls = 23
pack_report: pack_open_windows = 1 / 1
pack_report: pack_mapped = 2905751 / 2905751
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the output from git-sizer:
Processing blobs: 47991
Processing trees: 3946
Processing commits: 22
Matching commits to trees: 22
Processing annotated tags: 0
Processing references: 15
| Name | Value | Level of concern |
| ---------------------------- | --------- | ------------------------------ |
| Overall repository size | | |
| * Blobs | | |
| * Total size | 13.7 GiB | * |
| | | |
| Biggest objects | | |
| * Trees | | |
| * Maximum entries [1] | 13.4 k | ************* |
| * Blobs | | |
| * Maximum size [2] | 279 MiB | ***************************** |
| | | |
| Biggest checkouts | | |
| * Maximum path depth [3] | 10 | * |
| * Maximum path length [3] | 130 B | * |
| * Total size of files [3] | 8.63 GiB | ********* |
[1] b701345cbd4317276568b9d9890fd77f38933bdc
(refs/heads/master:Resources/default/CIFP)
[2] 19f54c4a7595667329c1be23200234f0fe50ac56
(refs/heads/master:Resources/default/apt.dat)
[3] b0e3d3a2b7f2504117408f13486c905a8eb8fb1e (refs/heads/master^{tree})
Some notes:
[1] is a directory with many short (typically < 1kB) text files
[2] is a very large text file with many changes
[3] Yes, some paths are long
Regards,
Ulrich
>>> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 20.08.2018 um 10:57
in
Nachricht <87woslpg9i.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, Aug 20 2018, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>
>>>>> Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> schrieb am 16.08.2018 um 22:55 in Nachricht
>> <20180816205556.GA8257@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 10:35:53PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is all interesting, but I think unrelated to what Ulrich is talking
>>>> about. Quote:
>>>>
>>>> Between the two phases of "git fsck" (checking directories and
>>>> checking objects) there was a break of several seconds where no
>>>> progress was indicated
>>>>
>>>> I.e. it's not about the pause you get with your testcase (which is
>>>> certainly another issue) but the break between the two progress bars.
>>>
>>> I think he's talking about both. What I said responds to this:
>>
>> Hi guys!
>>
>> Yes, I was wondering what git does between the two visible phases, and
> between
>> the lines I was suggesting another progress message between those phases.
At
>> least the maximum unspecific three-dot-message "Thinking..." could be
> displayed
>> ;-) Of course anything more appropriate would be welcome.
>> Also that message should only be displayed if it's foreseeable that the
>> operation will take significant time. In my case (I just repeated it a few
>> minutes ago) the delay is significant (at least 10 seconds). As noted
> earlier I
>> was hoping to capture the timing in a screencast, but it seems all the
> delays
>> were just optimized away in the recording.
>>
>>>
>>>> >> During "git gc" the writing objects phase did not update for some
>>>> >> seconds, but then the percentage counter jumped like from 15% to 42%.
>>>
>>> But yeah, I missed that the fsck thing was specifically about a break
>>> between two meters. That's a separate problem, but also worth
>>> discussing (and hopefully much easier to address).
>>>
>>>> If you fsck this repository it'll take around (on my spinning rust
>>>> server) 30 seconds between 100% of "Checking object directories" before
>>>> you get any output from "Checking objects".
>>>>
>>>> The breakdown of that is (this is from approximate eyeballing):
>>>>
>>>> * We spend 1-3 seconds just on this:
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
https://github.com/git/git/blob/63749b2dea5d1501ff85bab7b8a7f64911d21dea/pack
>>
>>> -check.c#L181
>>>
>>> OK, so that's checking the sha1 over the .idx file. We could put a meter
>>> on that. I wouldn't expect it to generally be all that slow outside of
>>> pathological cases, since it scales with the number of objects (and 1s
>>> is our minimum update anyway, so that might be OK as-is). Your case has
>>> 13M objects, which is quite large.
>>
>> Sometimes an oldish CPU could bring performance surprises, maybe. Anyway
my
>> CPU is question is an AMD Phenom2 quad-core with 3.2GHz nominal, and there
> is a
>> classic spinning disk with 5400RPM built in...
>>
>>>
>>>> * We spend the majority of the ~30s on this:
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
https://github.com/git/git/blob/63749b2dea5d1501ff85bab7b8a7f64911d21dea/pack
>>
>>> -check.c#L70-L79
>>>
>>> This is hashing the actual packfile. This is potentially quite long,
>>> especially if you have a ton of big objects.
>>
>> That seems to apply. BTW: Is there a way go get some repository statistics
>> like a histogram of object sizes (or whatever that might be useful to help
>> making decisions)?
>
> The git-sizer program is really helpful in this regard:
> https://github.com/github/git-sizer
>
>>>
>>> I wonder if we need to do this as a separate step anyway, though. Our
>>> verification is based on index-pack these days, which means it's going
>>> to walk over the whole content as part of the "Indexing objects" step to
>>> expand base objects and mark deltas for later. Could we feed this hash
>>> as part of that walk over the data? It's not going to save us 30s, but
>>> it's likely to be more efficient. And it would fold the effort naturally
>>> into the existing progress meter.
>>>
>>>> * Wes spend another 3-5 seconds on this QSORT:
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
https://github.com/git/git/blob/63749b2dea5d1501ff85bab7b8a7f64911d21dea/pack
>>
>>> -check.c#L105
>>>
>>> That's a tough one. I'm not sure how we'd count it (how many compares we
>>> do?). And each item is doing so little work that hitting the progress
>>> code may make things noticeably slower.
>>
>> If it's sorting, maybe add some code like (wild guess):
>>
>> if (objects_to_sort > magic_number)
>> message("Sorting something...");
>
> I think a good solution to these cases is to just introduce something to
> the progress.c mode where it learns how to display a counter where we
> don't know what the end-state will be. Something like your proposed
> magic_number can just be covered under the more general case where we
> don't show the progress bar unless it's been 1 second (which I believe
> is the default).
>
>>>
>>> Again, your case is pretty big. Just based on the number of objects,
>>> linux.git should be 1.5-2.5 seconds on your machine for the same
>>> operation. Which I think may be small enough to ignore (or even just
>>> print a generic before/after). It's really the 30s packfile hash that's
>>> making the whole thing so terrible.
>>>
>>> -Peff
