Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757305AbYBWNIz (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:08:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756680AbYBWNIj (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:08:39 -0500 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.228]:30633 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756548AbYBWNIg (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:08:36 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uzy3m/+NzmbZ/mpKT2SIWVhAsvAQ6U/13J1eAdiUXshNMaUvor/3NRt2LuHE0yx1iS+OwMbRH+j1d7QzHNbfdamr7RXPzUWVjsQs2TpgAejkCXcND6G71t3TsvTUAFoevrcb13fDjf0PCT+HKsqUTCG7CzFHjHo+UyC7V1TxBCk= Message-ID: <998d0e4a0802230508w12f236baiaf2d9ab5f364670a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 14:08:35 +0100 From: "J.C. Pizarro" To: "Charles Bailey" , LKML , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Question about your git habits In-Reply-To: <20080223113952.GA4936@hashpling.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200802221837.37680.chase.venters@clientec.com> <20080223014445.GK27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <7vfxvk4f07.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20080223020913.GL27894@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <998d0e4a0802221823h3ba53097gf64fcc2ea826302b@mail.gmail.com> <998d0e4a0802221847m431aa136xa217333b0517b962@mail.gmail.com> <20080223113952.GA4936@hashpling.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1742 Lines: 36 On 2008/2/23, Charles Bailey wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:47:07AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote: > > > > Yesterday, i had git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 777 MiB ) > > Today, i've git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 779 MiB ) > > > > Both repos are different binaries , and i used 777 MiB + 779 MiB = 1556 MiB > > of bandwidth in two days. It's much! > > > > Why don't we implement "binary delta between old git repo and recent git repo" > > with "SHA1 built git repo verifier"? > > > > Suppose the size cost of this binary delta is e.g. around 52 MiB instead of > > 2 MiB due to numerous mismatching of binary parts, then the bandwidth > > in two days will be 777 MiB + 52 MiB = 829 MiB instead of 1556 MiB. > > > > Unfortunately, this "binary delta of repos" is not implemented yet :| > > > It sounds like what concerns you is the bandwith to git://foo.bar. If > you are cloning the first repository to somewhere were the first > clone is accessible and bandwidth between the clones is not an issue, > then you should be able to use the --reference parameter to git clone > to just fetch the missing ~2 MiB from foo.bar. > > A "binary delta of repos" should just be an 'incremental' pack file > and the git protocol should support generating an appropriate one. I'm > not quite sure what "not implemented yet" feature you are looking for. But if the repos are aggressively repacked then the bit to bit differences are not ~2 MiB. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/