You can already achieve the same benefit by making a local clone of the git repo (use --bare for this) and then configuring each job to have 2 repos: the first should be /path/to/local/repo and the second can be the location where you usually clone from.
This way most git objects will be shared because a local git clone will use hard links. My build slaves at work have small but fast ssd disks and we use this trick (plus running git clean -fxd as a post-task step) to keep disk space usage in control. -- Sami Gergely Nagy <gsz...@gmail.com> kirjoitti 15.2.2012 kello 19.15: > Thanks Mark, > that's great info - to me it sounds like the way to go. > Gergo > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Mark Waite <markwa...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The git plugin rework discussions mentioned the possibility of including the > "---reference <existing-repository>" argument to git clone so the pack files > for a single repository could be reused in multiple repositories on the same > machine. Then you could clone to a single directory on the slave, and > reference that clone rather than copying the pack files to each of the > workspace copies. > > I don't think it has been implemented yet, but the plugin developers may be > willing to share their ideas in case they have an even better idea than using > the --reference argument to git clone. > > Mark Waite > > From: Gergely Nagy <gsz...@gmail.com> > To: jenkinsci-users@googlegroups.com > Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:23 PM > Subject: git: reduce clones' disk space > > Hi Jenkins gurus, > > I have a load of jobs (50+ I think) which clone the same repository, but > different branches, to build/unit/test/functional test stages. > > Also, it's a special application of the "job splitting pattern" > (https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Splitting+a+big+job+into+smaller+jobs): > the tarball that downstream jobs receive is a much smaller than the entire > workspace: it only contains unknown files(git ls-files -oz: the build > artifacts), which is "just" 400m > vs 1.8G. Downstream jobs unpack this on top of a pristine clone to get up to > speed. This is quite fast (most files are there already) and also seems to do > better change tracking. > > However it costs space - each of the workspace is ~ 4-5G - half of which is > the git clone. > While git has a good reason to clone everything with all the branches, I > don't need that duplicated 50 times on the Jenkins box. > So am wondering if there is a way to optimise this? > I guess, i'd rather have one single full clone, and let jobs have the work > directories (+index?).. > > Any enlightments/alternative ideas are appreciated. > thanks, > Gergo > > > > > >
