Reminds me of this article:
"As a refresher, the Windows code base is approximately 3.5M files and,
when checked in to a Git repo, results in a repo of about 300GB... Before
the move to Git, in Source Depot, it was spread across 40+ depots and we
had a tool to manage operations that spanned them."`
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Stuart Henderson <***@spacehopper.org>
> On 2018-01-06, Lari Rasku <***@elisanet.fi> wrote:
> > On 01/02/18 14:03, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >> Hosting a large git repository is not trivial, it uses far more server
> >> resources (memory and cpu time) than an anoncvs/cvsync/rsync mirror, and
> >> OpenBSD src/ (or even just ports/) is *huge* for a git repo. It works
> >> better on Linux where things are more separated. Even *just the kernel*
> >> is split across multiple repos.
> > The Linux kernel repo is multiple times the size of OpenBSD-src ,
> > so I don't see how things being more separated helps them re: hosting.
> > Perhaps kernel.org just has more hardware to throw at the problem?
> > And in case anyone else was confused, the Linux kernel itself isn't split
> > across multiple repos: you can build a fully functional one from a single
> > checkout. It is the kernel *development* that is split across multiple
> > repos, with occasional merges to mainline.
> > : Naive estimate based on comparing object counts when cloning from
> > GitHub:
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/
> - 5,779,337 objects,
> Ah thanks, I didn't manage to track that down with the 850 others :)
> > https://github.com/openbsd/src - 1,741,047 objects.
> When I've tried converting in the past I've had things like it taking
> about a minute to do a git log, even after the git repack that people
> familiar with git suggested I try.
> >> Anyway, has anyone fetched your openbsd-src0-test repo from github while
> >> crossing crypto export boundaries? That has the exact same issue,
> >> except that now as it's your repo, it may well be considered that it's
> >> *you* that is responsible for exporting it.
> > Surely the responsibility for exporting lies with the one doing the
> > checkout? Otherwise I don't see how operators of OpenBSD CVS mirrors
> > in the US aren't in the same position.
> > Or is there some technical distinction between "mirroring" and "checking
> > a repository? (I ask because the warning against fetching sources from
> > when located outside North America only appears on
> > https://www.openbsd.org/cvsync.html, not https://www.openbsd.org/
> > or https://www.openbsd.org/ftp.html.)
> I don't know all the details. But the github page about it at
> makes it sound like it's the repo owner's responsibility to me.