GTP/0.1 terminology 101: commit reels and references
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
Josh, I'm cc:'ing the main list with this one as well, as I think it falls into the scope of discussions of wider interest than the rfc- and implementation-specific discussions that (I envisaged would) happen on the gittorrent list.
Quoted 6 lines · Joshua Roys
Here's some terms, as best as I understand them.
The *Commit Reel* is a sequence of objects between two reference points, sorted in a deterministic fashion. The two reference points are *Reference* objects, or a signed tag containing a collection of git refs (similar to the output from
git show-ref).
Yes, that's right. We have the two slightly ambiguous terms, "refs", which mean the same thing as the rest of git, and "References", which are more like .git/packed-refs. Perhaps this is a good time to pick a better name. "Slice" would be an accurate term, though it's certainly tempting to pick another term from the tape taxonomy, such as "Splice"¹ or "Mark"².
Quoted 2 lines
Commit reels can also, and generally do, include the objects required
for a specific commit.
Yes. The only times where they wouldn't contain all the objects required for the commits within the reel, is when those objects happened to be contained by a previous reel.
This is one of the design decisions which I think may be a mistake; a less expensive to calculate definition of a reel would be *all* objects between the starting and ending Reference objects. The current definition requires a hash index of objects in each reel, which must be consulted once for all objects when creating the reel index.
Quoted 4 lines
As an example, a commit reel could be the set of objects between the v2.6.25 and v2.6.26 tags of the Linux kernel. The only thing we would need added to those tags is the list of heads (and tags) at the time of the tagging.
Correct. It represents all of the changes in a given repository over a period of time.
Quoted 4 lines
Those two structures form the basis for two *Peer Wire Protocol* (PWP) messages, Reels and References.
Any questions, corrections, or rotten vegetables?
No, I think that's all good so far...
Cheers,
Sam.
¹ - see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reel-to-reel_audio_tape_recording#Description
² - as used by the old unix "mt", see eg
http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-0210/6m6nb7mf3?a=view
Quoted 6 lines · Sam Vilain
Quoted 2 lines
Commit reels can also, and generally do, include the objects required
for a specific commit.Yes. The only times where they wouldn't contain all the objects required for the commits within the reel, is when those objects happened to be contained by a previous reel.
What do you mean by "previous" reel? It is not quite defined in your message but perhaps defined elsewhere?
How is this different from a bundle? Does a reel, unlike a bundle, contain the full tree for the bottom commits?
Quoted 3 lines
This is one of the design decisions which I think may be a mistake; a less expensive to calculate definition of a reel would be *all* objects between the starting and ending Reference objects.
Do you mean all such objects and nothing else? That would imply that a reel is quite similar to a bundle (but neither rev-list --objects-edge nor bundle guarantees that the result is minimal).
Quoted 7 lines · Junio C Hamano
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Commit reels can also, and generally do, include the objects required
for a specific commit.Yes. The only times where they wouldn't contain all the objects required for the commits within the reel, is when those objects happened to be contained by a previous reel.
Quoted 5 lines
What do you mean by "previous" reel? It is not quite defined in your message but perhaps defined elsewhere?
How is this different from a bundle? Does a reel, unlike a bundle, contain the full tree for the bottom commits?
They are almost identical, both being defined by a set of starting and ending refs. And now that you mention it, I feel slightly embarrassed for not spotting the connection before. I only really compared reels to packs, which is what the original specification tried to chop up bitwise and distribute chunk by chunk.
The differences are:
- the reel has a defined object order (which as I hoped to demonstrate in the test cases, is just a refinement of rev-list --date-order)
- deltas always point in one direction, to objects "earlier" on the reel, so that slices of the reel sent on the network can be made thin without resulting in unresolvable deltas (which should be possible to do on commit boundaries using rev-list --objects-edge)
- the behaviour at the beginning of the reel is precisely defined (although as I said, I think that the decision might be worth revisiting - perhaps getting just the latest reel is a useful 'shallow clone')
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
This is one of the design decisions which I think may be a mistake; a less expensive to calculate definition of a reel would be *all* objects between the starting and ending Reference objects.
Do you mean all such objects and nothing else? That would imply that a reel is quite similar to a bundle (but neither rev-list --objects-edge nor bundle guarantees that the result is minimal).
It's the lack of guarantees which is the issue, really. In order to take the download work of the entire pack and distribute it over multiple peers, you need a way to carve the bundle up. This has to happen in such a way that the fragments that you get back will actually fit together at the end, and also in such a way that you don't lose the benefits of delta compression.
The way I thought would be best to do that would be to line up all the objects in an exactly defined way - hence, the "reel" concept - and then chop that up.
If a pack is already arranged to line up with the commit reel's structure, then it's possible that the amount of work required to answer a "play" request is as little as looking up in the reel index the local on-disk location within the local pack, and copying that to the network.
I've certainly wondered how much baggage could be removed from this whole thing, like replacing the "tracker" with a simple git-daemon message that holds a register of mirrors/peers, possibly layering things over git:// instead of the bittorrent-like protocol, dividing up blocks by the commit graph and not all objects, etc. But I think that it would be best to defer that kind of design change until the conclusion of this prototype experiment.
That being said, anything which does shortcut the distance to the finish line and can be agreed on wouldn't go amiss.
Sam
Hi,
Quoted 11 lines · Sam Vilain
Quoted 9 lines · Junio C Hamano
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Commit reels can also, and generally do, include the objects required for a specific commit.
Yes. The only times where they wouldn't contain all the objects required for the commits within the reel, is when those objects happened to be contained by a previous reel.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
What do you mean by "previous" reel? It is not quite defined in your message but perhaps defined elsewhere?
How is this different from a bundle? Does a reel, unlike a bundle, contain the full tree for the bottom commits?
AFAICT no, the reel should not contain the full tree for the bottom commit.
Quoted 10 lines
They are almost identical, both being defined by a set of starting and ending refs. And now that you mention it, I feel slightly embarrassed for not spotting the connection before. I only really compared reels to packs, which is what the original specification tried to chop up bitwise and distribute chunk by chunk.
The differences are:
- the reel has a defined object order (which as I hoped to demonstrate in the test cases, is just a refinement of rev-list --date-order)
Do you mean that the commit reel is a list pointing to bundles that can be sorted topologically by their contained commits?
Quoted 4 lines
- deltas always point in one direction, to objects "earlier" on the reel, so that slices of the reel sent on the network can be made thin without resulting in unresolvable deltas (which should be possible to do on commit boundaries using rev-list --objects-edge)
That is exactly what bundles do. They are thin, as they assume that a few "preconditions", i.e. refs, are present.
Quoted 4 lines
- the behaviour at the beginning of the reel is precisely defined (although as I said, I think that the decision might be worth revisiting - perhaps getting just the latest reel is a useful 'shallow clone')
If you want to allow shallow clones, you must make the bundles non-thin. That would be a major bandwidth penalty.
I'd rather not allow shallow clones with Gitorrent.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
This is one of the design decisions which I think may be a mistake; a less expensive to calculate definition of a reel would be *all* objects between the starting and ending Reference objects.
Do you mean all such objects and nothing else? That would imply that a reel is quite similar to a bundle (but neither rev-list --objects-edge nor bundle guarantees that the result is minimal).
It's the lack of guarantees which is the issue, really.
It should not be too difficult to provide a rev-list option (which is inherited by git-bundle, then) to pay an extra time to make sure that the bundle is minimal.
BTW this is a good example how communication on the Git mailing list can help a GSoC project.
Quoted 5 lines
In order to take the download work of the entire pack and distribute it over multiple peers, you need a way to carve the bundle up. This has to happen in such a way that the fragments that you get back will actually fit together at the end, and also in such a way that you don't lose the benefits of delta compression.
That should be relatively easy.
Quoted 3 lines
The way I thought would be best to do that would be to line up all the objects in an exactly defined way - hence, the "reel" concept - and then chop that up.
What exactly is that exact definition?
Is it the output of "rev-list --all --objects", chopped into equal chunks at commit boundaries? If so, it should probably be equal in terms of size, right?
The tricky thing, of course, is to make that thing incremental, i.e. replace only a minimal amount of items in the "commit reel" (if I understood correctly, and the commit reel refers to a list of sets of commits with their objects) when a branch was modified.
Hmm. Maybe it would be time for you to draw a tiny diagram for all the people too lazy like me, which shows roughly how the communication between the peers should look like, and how the reel fits in.
Ciao,
Dscho
Quoted 5 lines · Johannes Schindelin
Quoted 2 lines
- the reel has a defined object order (which as I hoped to demonstrate in the test cases, is just a refinement of rev-list --date-order)
Do you mean that the commit reel is a list pointing to bundles that can be sorted topologically by their contained commits?
Yes, but it is more defined than that. There are still ambiguities with topological sort, so the gittorrent spec specified exactly how all ties are broken. They happen to be a further refinement of --date-order, with respect to the ordering of commits.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
- deltas always point in one direction, to objects "earlier" on the reel, so that slices of the reel sent on the network can be made thin without resulting in unresolvable deltas (which should be possible to do on commit boundaries using rev-list --objects-edge)
That is exactly what bundles do. They are thin, as they assume that a few "preconditions", i.e. refs, are present.
Ok. I think there are also some other trivial differences such as bundles containing refs (which in the context of gittorrent will be useless).
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
- the behaviour at the beginning of the reel is precisely defined (although as I said, I think that the decision might be worth revisiting - perhaps getting just the latest reel is a useful 'shallow clone')
If you want to allow shallow clones, you must make the bundles non-thin. That would be a major bandwidth penalty.
I'd rather not allow shallow clones with Gitorrent.
By "Shallow" I think I mean a different thing to you. I mean something akin to just the last pack's worth of commits.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
It's the lack of guarantees which is the issue, really.
It should not be too difficult to provide a rev-list option (which is inherited by git-bundle, then) to pay an extra time to make sure that the bundle is minimal.
Ok. But from the current implementation's perspective, this is not yet needed, we are just using the existing API.
Actually what would be useful would be for the thin pack generation to also allow any object to be specified as its input list, not just commits... then we wouldn't have to break blocks on commit boundaries (see http://gittorrent.utsl.gen.nz/rfc.html#org-blocks).
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
In order to take the download work of the entire pack and distribute it over multiple peers, you need a way to carve the bundle up. This has to happen in such a way that the fragments that you get back will actually fit together at the end, and also in such a way that you don't lose the benefits of delta compression.
Quoted 7 lines
That should be relatively easy.
Quoted 3 lines
The way I thought would be best to do that would be to line up all the objects in an exactly defined way - hence, the "reel" concept - and then chop that up.
What exactly is that exact definition?
http://gittorrent.utsl.gen.nz/rfc.html#org-reels
Quoted 3 lines
Is it the output of "rev-list --all --objects", chopped into equal chunks at commit boundaries? If so, it should probably be equal in terms of size, right?
No. It's chopped by uncompressed size.
http://gittorrent.utsl.gen.nz/rfc.html#org-blocks
Quoted 4 lines
The tricky thing, of course, is to make that thing incremental, i.e. replace only a minimal amount of items in the "commit reel" (if I understood correctly, and the commit reel refers to a list of sets of commits with their objects) when a branch was modified.
You would make a new reel to cover a new bunch of updates. It's important that the reels don't change too often for reasons I describe in the RFC.
Quoted 3 lines
Hmm. Maybe it would be time for you to draw a tiny diagram for all the people too lazy like me, which shows roughly how the communication between the peers should look like, and how the reel fits in.
As I said in my recent message to the list, I wrote another top level overview here:
http://gittorrent.utsl.gen.nz/rfc.html#org-blocks
Cheers,
Sam.
Hi,
Quoted 5 lines · Sam Vilain
Quoted 4 lines · Johannes Schindelin
Quoted 3 lines
- the reel has a defined object order (which as I hoped to demonstrate in the test cases, is just a refinement of rev-list --date-order)
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Do you mean that the commit reel is a list pointing to bundles that can be sorted topologically by their contained commits?
Yes, but it is more defined than that. There are still ambiguities with topological sort, so the gittorrent spec specified exactly how all ties are broken. They happen to be a further refinement of --date-order, with respect to the ordering of commits.
But does that not mean that any new ref branching off of an ancient commit changes all the pack boundaries?
I'd rather have an intelligent incremental updater, and keep most of the existing bundles immutable. That way, a new ref, or a changed one, can be mostly served from peers, not exclusively from the seeders.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 5 lines
- deltas always point in one direction, to objects "earlier" on the reel, so that slices of the reel sent on the network can be made thin without resulting in unresolvable deltas (which should be possible to do on commit boundaries using rev-list --objects-edge)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
That is exactly what bundles do. They are thin, as they assume that a few "preconditions", i.e. refs, are present.
Ok. I think there are also some other trivial differences such as bundles containing refs (which in the context of gittorrent will be useless).
Yeah, I think that bundles themselves are pretty useless in gitorrent. But what they _contain_ is pretty much what you need as blocks.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
- the behaviour at the beginning of the reel is precisely defined (although as I said, I think that the decision might be worth revisiting - perhaps getting just the latest reel is a useful 'shallow clone')
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 4 lines
If you want to allow shallow clones, you must make the bundles non-thin. That would be a major bandwidth penalty.
I'd rather not allow shallow clones with Gitorrent.
By "Shallow" I think I mean a different thing to you. I mean something akin to just the last pack's worth of commits.
That _is_ a shallow clone. And that is exactly what I meant. If you want to have all objects of the commits in the same pack, then you are basically making fat packs. Which come with a hefty bandwidth penalty.
That is why I would suggest not allowing shallow clones; if you want to allow them, I have to ask myself why bother with a torrent at all... It is not like the shallow clones are large, or that the people fetching them will stay around long to seed anything, and the packs would change frequently, making the whole torrent business pretty inefficient.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
It's the lack of guarantees which is the issue, really.
It should not be too difficult to provide a rev-list option (which is inherited by git-bundle, then) to pay an extra time to make sure that the bundle is minimal.
Ok. But from the current implementation's perspective, this is not yet needed, we are just using the existing API.
Why make it hard? We have a lively community with brilliant people, and they frequently have fun solving puzzles like this: what is the best strategy to make equally sized, rarely (or maybe never?) changing packs from a set of given refs.
Quoted 4 lines
Actually what would be useful would be for the thin pack generation to also allow any object to be specified as its input list, not just commits... then we wouldn't have to break blocks on commit boundaries (see http://gittorrent.utsl.gen.nz/rfc.html#org-blocks).
That should be easy, but I think that it would be _even better_ if we ask pack-objects to generate several packs from the needed objects. Ooops. That already exists:
$ git pack-objects --max-pack-size=<n>
Storing the packs in a second GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY that has the original as an alternate, together with the --local flag, should help even
further: You can mark the last pack (which does not reach max-pack-size, most likely), remove it and just rerun the packing.
Of course, this needs some thought when large chunks of the object database become stale when a long branch was just deleted. Not a major obstacle, though.
Ciao,
Dscho
Quoted 7 lines · Johannes Schindelin
Quoted 4 lines
Yes, but it is more defined than that. There are still ambiguities with topological sort, so the gittorrent spec specified exactly how all ties are broken. They happen to be a further refinement of --date-order, with respect to the ordering of commits.
But does that not mean that any new ref branching off of an ancient commit changes all the pack boundaries?
No. A "References" object is a snapshot of all refs at a particular time. If you want to make a new ref you make a new "References" object. *all* of the new objects are contained in the new reel, and the new reels do not affect the old reels.
Quoted 5 lines
That should be easy, but I think that it would be
_evenbetter_if we ask pack-objects to generate several packs from the needed objects. Ooops. That already exists:$ git pack-objects --max-pack-size=<n>
This does not deterministically generate the same pack for a given set of refs across all git versions.
Your ideas would have been excellent earlier on, perhaps if developed they might have resulted in something quite a bit simpler with all of the features the current protocol has - but given we are in the second half of a GSoC project of which the end is in sight then I think we should shelve them until the project finishes. There has certainly been a lot of useful things come out of them!
Cheers,
Sam.