> 2021年7月20日 04:51，Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 写道： > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 07:53:19PM +0000, Sun Chao via GitGitGadget wrote: >> From: Sun Chao <16657101987@xxxxxxx> >> >> Commit 33d4221c79 (write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects, >> 2014-10-15) avoid writing existing objects by freshen their >> mtime (especially the packfiles contains them) in order to >> aid the correct caching, and some process like find_lru_pack >> can make good decision. However, this is unfriendly to >> incremental backup jobs or services rely on cached file system >> when there are large '.pack' files exists. >> >> For example, after packed all objects, use 'write-tree' to >> create same commit with the same tree and same environments >> such like GIT_COMMITTER_DATE and GIT_AUTHOR_DATE, we can >> notice the '.pack' file's mtime changed. Git servers >> that mount the same NFS disk will re-sync the '.pack' files >> to cached file system which will slow the git commands. >> >> So if add core.freshenPackfiles to indicate whether or not >> packs can be freshened, turning off this option on some >> servers can speed up the execution of some commands on servers >> which use NFS disk instead of local disk. > > Hmm. I'm still quite unconvinced that we should be taking this direction > without better motivation. We talked about your assumption that NFS > seems to be invalidating the block cache when updating the inodes that > point at those blocks, but I don't recall seeing further evidence. Yes, these days I'm trying to asking help from our SRE to do tests in our production environments (where we can get the real traffic report of NFS server), such like: - setup a repository witch some large packfiles in a NFS disk - keep running 'git pack-objects --all --stdout --delta-base-offset >/dev/null' in multiple git servers that mount the same NFS disk above - 'touch' the packfiles in another server, and check (a) if the IOPS and IO traffic of the NFS server changes and (b) if the IO traffic of network interfaces from the git servers to the NFS server changes I like to share the data when I receive the reports. Meanwhile I find the description of the cached file system for NFS Client: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.2?topic=performance-cache-file-system It is mentioned that: 3. To ensure that the cached directories and files are kept up to date, CacheFS periodically checks the consistency of files stored in the cache. It does this by comparing the current modification time to the previous modification time. 4. If the modification times are different, all data and attributes for the directory or file are purged from the cache, and new data and attributes are retrieved from the back file system. It looks like reasonable, but perhaps I should check it from my test reports ;) > > Regardless, a couple of idle thoughts: > >> + if (!core_freshen_packfiles) >> + return 1; > > It is important to still freshen the object mtimes even when we cannot > update the pack mtimes. That's why we return 0 when "freshen_file" > returned 0: even if there was an error calling utime, we should still > freshen the object. This is important because it impacts when > unreachable objects are pruned. > > So I would have assumed that if a user set "core.freshenPackfiles=false" > that they would still want their object mtimes updated, in which case > the only option we have is to write those objects out loose. > > ...and that happens by the caller of freshen_packed_object (either > write_object_file() or hash_object_file_literally()) then calling > write_loose_object() if freshen_packed_object() failed. So I would have > expected to see a "return 0" in the case that packfile freshening was > disabled. > > But that leads us to an interesting problem: how many redundant objects > do we expect to see on the server? It may be a lot, in which case you > may end up having the same IO problems for a different reason. Peff > mentioned to me off-list that he suspected write-tree was overeager in > how many trees it would try to write out. I'm not sure. You are right, I haven't thought it in details, if we do not update the mtime both of packfiles and loose files, 'prune' may delete them by accident. > >> +test_expect_success 'do not bother loosening old objects without freshen pack time' ' >> + obj1=$(echo three | git hash-object -w --stdin) && >> + obj2=$(echo four | git hash-object -w --stdin) && >> + pack1=$(echo $obj1 | git -c core.freshenPackFiles=false pack-objects .git/objects/pack/pack) && >> + pack2=$(echo $obj2 | git -c core.freshenPackFiles=false pack-objects .git/objects/pack/pack) && >> + git -c core.freshenPackFiles=false prune-packed && >> + git cat-file -p $obj1 && >> + git cat-file -p $obj2 && >> + test-tool chmtime =-86400 .git/objects/pack/pack-$pack2.pack && >> + git -c core.freshenPackFiles=false repack -A -d --unpack-unreachable=1.hour.ago && >> + git cat-file -p $obj1 && >> + test_must_fail git cat-file -p $obj2 >> +' > > I had a little bit of a hard time following this test. AFAICT, it > proceeds as follows: > > - Write two packs, each containing a unique unreachable blob. > - Call 'git prune-packed' with packfile freshening disabled, then > check that the object survived. > - Then repack while in a state where one of the pack's contents would > be pruned. > - Make sure that one object survives and the other doesn't. > > This doesn't really seem to be testing the behavior of disabling > packfile freshening so much as it's testing prune-packed, and repack's > `--unpack-unreachable` option. I would probably have expected to see > something more along the lines of: > > - Write an unreachable object, pack it, and then remove the loose copy > you wrote in the first place. > - Then roll the pack's mtime to some fixed value in the past. > - Try to write the same object again with packfile freshening > disabled, and verify that: > - the pack's mtime was unchanged, > - the object exists loose again > > But I'd really like to get some other opinions (especially from Peff, > who brought up the potential concerns with write-tree) as to whether or > not this is a direction worth pursuing. > > My opinion is that it is not, and that the bizarre caching behavior you > are seeing is out of Git's control. OK, I will try this. And I will try to get the test reports from our SRE and check how the mtime impacts the caches. > > Thanks, > Taylor
