# Re: \[PATCH\] packfile: enhance the mtime of packfile by idx file

- From: Sun Chao \<hidden\>
- Date: 2021-07-12 16:17:42 
- List: git
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/07/7894723
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/git/2021/07/7894600/t.md

```text


> 2021年7月12日 07:44，Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [ref] 写道：
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jul 10 2021, Sun Chao via GitGitGadget wrote:
> 
>> From: Sun Chao <redacted>
>> 
>> Commit 33d4221c79 (write_sha1_file: freshen existing objects,
>> 2014-10-15) avoid writing existing objects by freshen their
>> mtime (especially the packfiles contains them) in order to
>> aid the correct caching, and some process like find_lru_pack
>> can make good decision. However, this is unfriendly to
>> incremental backup jobs or services rely on file system
>> cache when there are large '.pack' files exists.
>> 
>> For example, after packed all objects, use 'write-tree' to
>> create same commit with the same tree and same environments
>> such like GIT_COMMITTER_DATE and GIT_AUTHOR_DATE, we can
>> notice the '.pack' file's mtime changed, but '.idx' file not.
>> 
>> So if we update the mtime of packfile by updating the '.idx'
>> file instead of '.pack' file, when we check the mtime
>> of packfile, get it from '.idx' file instead. Large git
>> repository may contains large '.pack' files, but '.idx'
>> files are smaller enough, this can avoid file system cache
>> reload the large files again and speed up git commands.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sun Chao <redacted>
> 
> Does this have the unstated trade-off that in a mixed-version
> environment (say two git versions coordinating writes to an NFS share)
> where one is old and thinks *.pack needs updating, and the other is new
> and thinks *.idx is what should be checked, that until both are upgraded
> we're effectively back to pre-33d4221c79.
> 
Thanks for your reply, I can not agree with you more.

> I don't think it's a dealbreaker, just wondering if I've got that right
> & if it is's a trade-off you thought about, maybe we should check the
> mtime of both. The stat() is cheap, it's the re-sync that matters for
> you.
> 
> But just to run with that thought, wouldn't it be even more helpful to
> you to have say a config setting to create a *.bump file next to the
> *.{idx,pack}.
> 
> Then you'd have an empty file (the *.idx is smaller, but still not
> empty), and as a patch it seems relatively simple, i.e. some core.* or
> gc.* or pack.* setting changing what we touch/stat().

Yes, thanks. This is a good idea, let me try this way.


```