While this command is definitely something we _want_, chances are that
upstreaming this will require substantial changes.
We still want to be able to experiment with this before that, to focus
on what we need out of this command: To assist with diagnosing issues
with large repositories, as well as to help monitoring the growth and
the associated painpoints of such repositories.
To that end, we are about to integrate this command into
`microsoft/git`, to get the tool into the hands of users who need it
most, with the idea to iterate in close collaboration between these
users and the developers familar with Git's internals.
However, we will definitely want to avoid letting anybody have the
impression that this command, its exact inner workings, as well as its
output format, are anywhere close to stable. To make that fact utterly
clear (and thereby protect the freedom to iterate and innovate freely
before upstreaming the command), let's mark its output as experimental
in all-caps, as the first thing we do.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
The 'git survey' builtin provides several detail tables, such as "top
files by on-disk size". The size of these tables defaults to 10,
currently.
Allow the user to specify this number via a new --top=<N> option or the
new survey.top config key.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Since we are already walking our reachable objects using the path-walk API,
let's now collect lists of the paths that contribute most to different
metrics. Specifically, we care about
* Number of versions.
* Total size on disk.
* Total inflated size (no delta or zlib compression).
This information can be critical to discovering which parts of the
repository are causing the most growth, especially on-disk size. Different
packing strategies might help compress data more efficiently, but the toal
inflated size is a representation of the raw size of all snapshots of those
paths. Even when stored efficiently on disk, that size represents how much
information must be processed to complete a command such as 'git blame'.
The exact disk size seems to be not quite robust enough for testing, as
could be seen by the `linux-musl-meson` job consistently failing, possibly
because of zlib-ng deflates differently: t8100.4(git survey
(default)) was failing with a symptom like this:
TOTAL OBJECT SIZES BY TYPE
===============================================
Object Type | Count | Disk Size | Inflated Size
------------+-------+-----------+--------------
- Commits | 10 | 1523 | 2153
+ Commits | 10 | 1528 | 2153
Trees | 10 | 495 | 1706
Blobs | 10 | 191 | 101
- Tags | 4 | 510 | 528
+ Tags | 4 | 547 | 528
This means: the disk size is unlikely something we can verify robustly.
Since zlib-ng seems to increase the disk size of the tags from 528 to
547, we cannot even assume that the disk size is always smaller than the
inflated size. We will most likely want to either skip verifying the
disk size altogether, or go for some kind of fuzzy matching, say, by
replacing `s/ 1[45][0-9][0-9] / ~1.5k /` and `s/ [45][0-9][0-9] / ~½k /`
or something like that.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
In future changes, we will make use of these methods. The intention is to
keep track of the top contributors according to some metric. We don't want
to store all of the entries and do a sort at the end, so track a
constant-size table and remove rows that get pushed out depending on the
chosen sorting algorithm.
Co-authored-by: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Signed-off-by; Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Now that we have explored objects by count, we can expand that a bit more to
summarize the data for the on-disk and inflated size of those objects. This
information is helpful for diagnosing both why disk space (and perhaps
clone or fetch times) is growing but also why certain operations are slow
because the inflated size of the abstract objects that must be processed is
so large.
Note: zlib-ng is slightly more efficient even at those small sizes. Even
between zlib versions, there are slight differences in compression. To
accommodate for that in the tests, not the exact numbers but some rough
approximations are validated (the test should validate `git survey`,
after all, not zlib).
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
At the moment, nothing is obvious about the reason for the use of the
path-walk API, but this will become more prevelant in future iterations. For
now, use the path-walk API to sum up the counts of each kind of object.
For example, this is the reachable object summary output for my local repo:
REACHABLE OBJECT SUMMARY
========================
Object Type | Count
------------+-------
Tags | 1343
Commits | 179344
Trees | 314350
Blobs | 184030
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
When 'git survey' provides information to the user, this will be presented
in one of two formats: plaintext and JSON. The JSON implementation will be
delayed until the functionality is complete for the plaintext format.
The most important parts of the plaintext format are headers specifying the
different sections of the report and tables providing concreted data.
Create a custom table data structure that allows specifying a list of
strings for the row values. When printing the table, check each column for
the maximum width so we can create a table of the correct size from the
start.
The table structure is designed to be flexible to the different kinds of
output that will be implemented in future changes.
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
By default we will scan all references in "refs/heads/", "refs/tags/"
and "refs/remotes/".
Add command line opts let the use ask for all refs or a subset of them
and to include a detached HEAD.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Start work on a new 'git survey' command to scan the repository
for monorepo performance and scaling problems. The goal is to
measure the various known "dimensions of scale" and serve as a
foundation for adding additional measurements as we learn more
about Git monorepo scaling problems.
The initial goal is to complement the scanning and analysis performed
by the GO-based 'git-sizer' (https://github.com/github/git-sizer) tool.
It is hoped that by creating a builtin command, we may be able to take
advantage of internal Git data structures and code that is not
accessible from GO to gain further insight into potential scaling
problems.
Co-authored-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>
