mirrors/git-annex
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Merge branch 'master' of ssh://git-annex.branchable.com

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Joey Hess 2016-09-23 09:43:03 -04:00
commit 53650ffb14
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: C910D9222512E3C7
3 changed files with 117 additions and 0 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

10
doc/todo/Allow_globally_limiting_filename_length/comment_5_2b49a293b044d0c2fcfe1701c76424c4._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="interfect@b151490178830f44348aa57b77ad58c7d18e8fe7"
nickname="interfect"
subject="comment 5"
date="2016-09-21T22:49:55Z"
content="""
OK, I'll try something like that.
(Full disk encryption is still there; I think on one system I just have ecryptfs, because I want to be able to get in over ssh sometimes, and on one I have *both* FDE and ecryptfs on, because I enjoy performance penalties.)
"""]]

26
doc/todo/transitive_transfers/comment_2_7255f5083283b0ae7e7fc41e127bd829._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="JasonWoof"
subject="simpler use case"
date="2016-09-22T00:40:07Z"
content="""
Here's my use case (much simpler)
Three git repos:
desktop: normal checkout, source of almost all annexd files, commits, etc.. The only place I run git annex commands. Not enough space to stored all annexed files
main_external: bare git repo, stores all annext file contents, but no file tree. Usually connected. Purpose: primary backups
old_external: like main_external, except connected only occasionally.
I periodically copy from desktop to main_external. That's all well and good.
The tricky part is when I plug in old_external and want to get everything on there. It's hard to get content onto old_external that is stored only on main_external. That's when I want to:
git annex copy --from=main_external --to=old_external --not --in old_external
Note that this would _not_ copy obsolete data (ie only referenced from old git commits) stored in old_external. I like that.
To work around the lack of that feature, I try to keep coppies on desktop until I've had a chance to copy them to both external drives. It's good for numcopies, but I don't like trying to keep track of it, and I wish I could choose to let there be just one copy of things on main_external for replaceable data.
"""]]

81
doc/todo/transitive_transfers/comment_3_e5c2ede203e7bdb5af8432df6c09268f._comment Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
[[!comment format=mdwn
username="https://anarc.at/openid/"
nickname="anarcat"
subject="thanks for considering this!"
date="2016-09-22T12:43:11Z"
content="""
> (Let's not discuss the behavior of copy --to when the file is not
> locally present here; there is plenty of other discussion of that in
> eg http://bugs.debian.org/671179)
Agreed, it's kind of secondary.
> git-annex's special remote API does not allow remote-to-remote
> transfers without spooling it to a file on disk first.
yeah, i noticed that when writing my own special remote.
> And it's not possible to do using rsync on either end, AFAICS.
That is correct.
> It would be possible in some other cases but this would need to be
> implemented for each type of remote as a new API call.
... and would fail for most, so there's little benefit there.
how about a socket or FIFO of some sort? i know those break a lot of
semantics (e.g. `[ -f /tmp/fifo ]` fails in bash) but they could be a
solution...
> Modern systems tend to have quite a large disk cache, so it's quite
> possible that going via a temp file on disk is not going to use a
> lot of disk IO to write and read it when the read and write occur
> fairly close together.
true. there are also in-memory files that could be used, although I
don't think this would work across different process spaces.
> The main benefit from streaming would probably be if it could run
> the download and the upload concurrently.
for me, the main benefit would be to deal with low disk space
conditions, which is quite common on my machines: i often cram the
disk almost to capacity with good stuff i want to listen to
later... git-annex allows me to freely remove stuff when i need the
space, but it often means i am close to 99% capacity on the media
drives i use.
> But that would only be a benefit sometimes. With an asymmetric
> connection, saturating the uplink tends to swamp downloads. Also,
> if download is faster than upload, it would have to throttle
> downloads (which complicates the remote API much more), or buffer
> them to memory (which has its own complications).
that is true.
> Streaming the download to the upload would at best speed things up
> by a factor of 2. It would probably work nearly as well to upload
> the previously downloaded file while downloading the next file.
presented like that, it's true that the benefits of streaming are not
good enough to justify the complexity - the only problem is large
files and low local disk space... but maybe we can delegate that
solution to the user: \"free up at least enough space for one of those
files you want to transfer\".
[... -J magic stuff ...]
> And there is a complication with running that at the same time as eg
> git annex get of the same file. It would be surprising for get to
> succeed (because copy has already temporarily downloaded the file)
> and then have the file later get dropped. So, it seems that copy
> --from --to would need to stash the content away in a temp file
> somewhere instead of storing it in the annex proper.
My thoughts exactly: actually copying the files to the local repo
introduces all sorts of weird --numcopies nastiness and race
conditions, it seems to me.
thanks for considering this!
"""]]