1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
|
This page's purpose is to collect and explore plans for a future
annex.version 6.
There are two major possible changes that could go in v6 or a later
version that would require a hard migration of git-annex repositories:
1. Changing .git/annex/objects/ paths, as appear in the git-annex symlinks.
2. Changing the layout of the git-annex branch in a substantial way.
## object path changes
Any change in this area requires the user make changes to their master
branch, any other active branches. Old un-converted tags and other
historical trees in git would also be broken. This is a pretty bad user
experience. (And it bloats history with a commit that rewrites everything
too.
For this reason, any changes in this area have been avoided, going all the
way back to v2 (2011).
> git-annex had approximately 3 users at the
> time of that migration, and as one of them, I can say it was a total PITA.
--[[Joey]]
So, there would need to be significant payoffs to justify this change.
Note that changing the hash directories might also change where objects are
stored in special remotes. Because repos can be offline or expensive to
migrate (or both -- Glacier!) any such changes need to keep looking in the
old locations for backwards compatability.
Possible reasons to make changes:
* It's annoyingly inconsistent that git-annex uses a different hash
directory layout for non-bare repository (on a non-crippled filesystem)
than is used for bare repositories and some special remotes.
Users occasionally stumble over this difference when messing with
internals. The code is somewhat complicated by it. In some cases,
git-annex checks both locations (eg, a bare repo defaults to xxx/yyy
but really old ones might use xX/yY for some keys).
The mixed case hash directories have caused trouble on case-insensative
filesystems, although that has mostly been papered over to avoid
problems.
* The hash directories, and also the per-key directories
can slow down using a repository on a non-SSD disk.
<https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues/32>
Initial benchmarks suggest that going from xX/yY/KEY/OBJ to xX/yY/OBJ
directories would improve speed 3x.
Presumably, removing the yY would also speed it up, unless there are too
many objects and the filesystem gets slow w/o the hash directories.
## git-annex branch changes
This might involve, eg, rethinking the xxx/yyy/ hash directories used
in the git-annex branch.
Would this require a hard version transition? It might be possible to avoid
one, but then git-annex would have to look in both the old and the new
place. And if a un-transitioned repo was merged into a transitioned one,
git-annex would have to look in *both* places, and union merge the two sets
of data on the fly. This doubles the git-cat-file overhead of every
operation involving the git-annex branch. So a hard transition would
probably be best.
Also, note that w/o a hard transition, there's the risk that a old
git-annex version gets ahold of a git-annex branch created by a new
git-annex version, and sees only half of the story (the un-transitioned
files). This could be a very confusing failure mode. It doesn't help that
the git-annex branch does not currently have any kind of
version number embedded in it, so the old version of git-annex doesn't even
have a way to check if it can handle the branch.
Possible reasons to make changes:
* There is a discussion of some possible changes to the hash directories here
<https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues/17#issuecomment-68558319> with a
goal of reducing the overhead of the git-annex branch in the overall size
of the git-annex repository.
Removing the second-level hash directories might improve performance.
It doesn't save much space when a repository is having incremental changes
made to it. However, if millions of annexed objects are being added
in a single commit, removing the second-level hash directories does save
space; it halves the number of tree
objects[1](https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues/17#issuecomment-68759754).
Also,
<https://github.com/datalad/datalad/issues/17#issuecomment-68569727>
suggests using xxx/yyy.log, where one log contains information for
multiple keys. This would probably improve performance too due to
caching, although in some cases git-annex would have to process extra
information to get to the info about the key it wants, which hurts
performance. The disk usage change of this method has not yet been
quantified.
* Another reason to do it would be improving git-annex to use vector clocks,
instead of its current assumption that client's clocks are close enough to
accurate. This would presumably change the contents of the files.
* While not a sufficient reason on its own, the best practices for file
formats in the git-annex branch has evolved over time, and there are some
files that have unusual formats for historical reasons. Other files have
modern formats, but their parsers have to cope with old versions that
have other formats. A hard transition would provide an opportunity to
clean up a lot of that.
## living on the edge
Rather than a hard transition, git-annex could add a v6 mode
that could be optionally enabled when initing a repo for the first time.
Users who know they need that mode could then turn it one, and get the
benefits, while everyone else avoids a transition that doesn't benefit them
much.
There could even be multiple modes, with different tradeoffs depending on
how the repo will be used, its size, etc. Of course that adds complexity.
But the main problem with this idea is, how to avoid the foot shooting
result of merging repo A(v5) into repo B(v6)? This seems like it would be
all to easy for a user to do.
As far as git-annex branch changes go, it might be possible for git-annex
to paper over the problem by handling both versions in the merged git-annex
branch, as discussed earlier. But for .git/annex/objects/ changes, there
does not seem to be a reasonable thing for git-annex to do. When it's
receiving an object into a mixed v5 and v6 repo, it can't know which
location that repo expects the object file to be located in. Different
files in the repo might point to the same object in different locations!
Total mess. Must avoid this.
Currently, annex.version is a per-local-repo setting. git-annex can't tell
if two repos that it's merging have different annex.version's.
It would be possible to add a git-annex:version file, which would work for
git-annex branch merging. Ie, `git-annex merge` could detect if different
git-annex branches have different versions, and refuse to merge them (or
upgrade the old one before merging it).
Also, that file could be used by git-annex, to automatically set
annex.version when auto-initing a clone of a repo that was initted with
a newer than default version.
But git-anex:version won't prevent merging B/master into A's master.
That merge can be done by git; nothing in git-annex can prevent it.
What we could do is have a .annex-version flag file in the root of the
repo. Then git merge would at least have a merge conflict. Note that this
means inflicting the file on all git-annex repos, even ones used by people
with no intention of living on the edge. And, it would take quite a while
until all such repos get updated to contain such a file.
Or, we could just document that if you initialize a repo with experimental
annex.version, you're living on the edge and you can screw up your repo
by merging with a repo from an old version.
git-annex fsck could also fix up any broken links that do result from the
inevitable cases where users ignore the docs.
|
