On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:47:54AM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> The key to converting repositories of this size is RAM. 4GB minimum,
> more would be better. git-repack is not multi-threaded. There were a
> few attempts at making it multi-threaded but none were too successful.
> If I remember right, w
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 09:18:39AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > The downside is that the threading partitions the object space, so the
> > resulting size is not necessarily as small (but I don't know that
> > anybody has done testing on large repos to find out how large the
> > difference is).
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 01:02:58PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > What is really disappointing is that we saved
> > only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> > my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> > objects" stage with a thrashin
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 07:31:21PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > So it is about 5% bigger. What is really disappointing is that we saved
> > only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> > my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> > objec
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:35:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > What is really disappointing is that we saved only about 20% of the
> > time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but my guess is that we
> > spent a long time in the single threaded "writing objects" stage with a
> > thra
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 01:50:47AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Yes, but balanced by one thread running out of data way earlier than the
> other, and completing the task with only one CPU. I am doing a 4-thread
> test on a quad-CPU right now, and I will also try it with threads=1 and
> t
