Results of first test with 198 patches.
Posted Apr 14, 2005 3:40 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole
In reply to: Results of first test with 198 patches.
Parent article: The guts of git
I think "down the road" is exactly the time when we won't have to worry so much about disk usage. :)
With the continued improvement in disk storage capacity, I'm sure you're right. A related concern is network bandwidth. Not everyone has or can have a high-speed link.
Here is Linus and Andrew's take on the subject:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Linus Torvalds (torvalds at osdl.org) wrote:
> > ie we added 9MB of stuff from a set of emails that totaled a 859kB mbox.
> The total size of the commits list since Nov 2002 is 500MB, excluding those
> "merge" thingies.
> So I assume that the git tree will grow at 2GB/year.
Yes, that's within my mental envelope. I was estimating a 3-5GB git
archive for the last three years of BK work.
The good news is that the way git works, you really can put the old
history in "storage" - throw it away (and just rely on the distribution
meaning that it's _somewhere_ out there on the net) or write it on a DVD
and forgetting about it. Most people really only care about the last few
Is 2GB a year a lot? I think it's peanuts, but hey, I can fill up my whole
disk with kernel trees, and I wouldn't feel it's wasted space. Others may
have slightly different priorities ("hey, I could fit 5000 songs in
to post comments)