Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-21 Thread David Kastrup
Junio C Hamano writes: > I know that the 512MiB default for the bitFileThreashold (aka > "forget about delta compression") came out of thin air. It was just > "1GB is always too huge for anybody, so let's cut it in half and > declare that value the initial version of a sane threashold", > nothin

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-21 Thread David Kastrup
Jeff King writes: > If you have before-and-after numbers for just this patch on some > repository, that would be an interesting thing to put in the commit > message. It's a hen-and-egg problem regarding the benchmarks. The most impressive benchmarks arise with the git-blame performance work in

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-21 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:04 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Hmm, doesn't packing need to read existing data? > > Judging from the frequent out-of-memory conditions of git gc > --aggressive, packing is not restrained by deltaBaseCacheLimit. pack-objects memory usage is more controlled by pack.windowm

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-21 Thread David Kastrup
Junio C Hamano writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> Duy Nguyen writes: >>> The only downside I see is large blobs will be packed undeltified, which could increase pack size if you have lots of them. >>> >>> I think that is something that can be twe

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-21 Thread David Kastrup
Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:38:32PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > >> The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains >> combined with large files. > > Does it make much sense to bump this without also bumping > MAX_DELTA_CACHE in sha1_file.c? In my measurem

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-20 Thread Jeff King
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:38:32PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains > combined with large files. Does it make much sense to bump this without also bumping MAX_DELTA_CACHE in sha1_file.c? In my measurements of linux.git, bumping the

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-20 Thread Junio C Hamano
David Kastrup writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Duy Nguyen writes: >> >>> The only >>> downside I see is large blobs will be packed undeltified, which could >>> increase pack size if you have lots of them. >> >> I think that is something that can be tweaked, unless the user tells >> us oth

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-20 Thread David Kastrup
Junio C Hamano writes: > Duy Nguyen writes: > >> The only >> downside I see is large blobs will be packed undeltified, which could >> increase pack size if you have lots of them. > > I think that is something that can be tweaked, unless the user tells > us otherwise via command line override, w

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-20 Thread Junio C Hamano
Duy Nguyen writes: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> I know that the 512MiB default for the bitFileThreashold (aka >> "forget about delta compression") came out of thin air. It was just >> "1GB is always too huge for anybody, so let's cut it in half and >> declar

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-19 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:11 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > David Kastrup writes: > >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> David Kastrup writes: >>> The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains combined with large files. Signed-off-by: David Kastrup ---

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
David Kastrup writes: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> David Kastrup writes: >> >>> The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains >>> combined with large files. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: David Kastrup >>> --- >> >> Is that a good argument? Wouldn't the default of 128MiB burde

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-19 Thread David Kastrup
Junio C Hamano writes: > David Kastrup writes: > >> The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains >> combined with large files. >> >> Signed-off-by: David Kastrup >> --- > > Is that a good argument? Wouldn't the default of 128MiB burden > smaller machines with bloated pr

Re: [PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-19 Thread Junio C Hamano
David Kastrup writes: > The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains > combined with large files. > > Signed-off-by: David Kastrup > --- Is that a good argument? Wouldn't the default of 128MiB burden smaller machines with bloated processes? > Forgot the signoff. For t

[PATCH v2] Bump core.deltaBaseCacheLimit to 128MiB

2014-03-19 Thread David Kastrup
The default of 16MiB causes serious thrashing for large delta chains combined with large files. Signed-off-by: David Kastrup --- Forgot the signoff. For the rationale of this patch and the 128MiB choice, see the original patch. Documentation/config.txt | 2 +- environment.c| 2 +-