Joey Hess <joey@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Giuseppe Bilotta wrote: > > > There is a small overhead in including the microformat on project list > > > and forks list pages, but getting the project descriptions for those pages > > > already incurs a similar overhead, and the ability to get every repo url > > > in one place seems worthwhile. > > > > I agree with this, although people with very large project lists may > > differ ... do we have timings on these? > > AFAICS, when displaying the project list, gitweb reads each project's > description file, falling back to reading its config file if there is no > description file. > > If performance was a problem here, the thing to do would be to add > project descriptions to the $project_list file, and use those in > preference to the description files. If a large site has done that, > they've not sent in the patch. :-) There was such patch sent by me, but IIRC it fall out, also because it was sent IIRC in feature freeze time. I have "gitweb: Extend project_index file format by project description" in my StGit stack. > > With my patch, it will read each cloneurl file too. The best way to > optimise that for large sites seems to be to add an option that would > ignore the cloneurl files and config file and always use > @git_base_url_list. Good idea. > > I checked the only large site I have access to (git.debian.org) and they > use a $project_list file, but I see no other performance tuning. That's > a 2 ghz machine; it takes gitweb 28 (!) seconds to generate the nearly 1 > MB index web page for 1671 repositories: > > /srv/git.debian.org/http/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi 3.04s user 9.24s system 43% cpu 28.515 total > > > Notice that most of the time is spent by child processes. For each > repository, gitweb runs git-for-each-ref to determine the time of the > last commit. > > If that is removed (say if there were a way to get the info w/o > forking), performance improves nicely: > > ./gitweb.cgi > /dev/null 1.29s user 1.08s system 69% cpu 3.389 total > > Making it not read description files for each project, as I suggest above, > is the next best optimisation: > > ./gitweb.cgi > /dev/null 1.08s user 0.05s system 96% cpu 1.170 total > > So, I think it makes sense to optimise gitweb and offer knobs for performance > tuning at the expense of the flexability of description and cloneurl files. > But, git-for-each-ref is swamping everything else. One solution would be to limit number of projects displayed on the page, for example to 100 projects, although that would mainly reduce problem with dealing with large page on client size, less so server load unless we _do not_ sort projects by age. Another solution would be to use caching: repo.or.cz uses one solution (caching only of projects_list action), kernel.org other solution (gitweb caching from GSoC 2008 project). -- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git -- 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
