Announcing Git Large File Storage

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:00 PM UTC

zipperhead wrote: post #61

res0nat0r wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried git-annex a couple of times to sync my 2 OSX and linux based computers at my house and play around. It wasn't the easiest thing to get setup and working and I couldn't get one of the OSX hosts to work at all. I'm sure this will be much easier to use for the end user like other github products and will "just work" out of the box.

As a counterpoint, I just set up git-annex and sync'd a couple of local servers plus a remote server, with no issues, by following along in the walkthrough. Granted, it's not exactly an out-of-the-box setup, like say, syncthing, but it wasn't anything overly difficult.

Post by sytse » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:09 PM UTC

FireBeyond wrote: post #85

sytse wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed similar to git-annex, why does GitHub not support that? With GitLab we added support for that recently and it was pretty easy to do. Anyway, interesting that linking to sha's is becoming the default solution. Looking forward to playing with this and comparing the solutions.

Because they are going to charge for LFS, I suspect. Just as they don't support private repos for free, either.

Post by sytse » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:10 PM UTC

zipperhead wrote: post #61

res0nat0r wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tried git-annex a couple of times to sync my 2 OSX and linux based computers at my house and play around. It wasn't the easiest thing to get setup and working and I couldn't get one of the OSX hosts to work at all. I'm sure this will be much easier to use for the end user like other github products and will "just work" out of the box.

As a counterpoint, I just set up git-annex and sync'd a couple of local servers plus a remote server, with no issues, by following along in the walkthrough. Granted, it's not exactly an out-of-the-box setup, like say, syncthing, but it wasn't anything overly difficult.

Post by sytse » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:12 PM UTC

rakoo wrote: post #47

icebraining wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You basically trade the ability to have diffs (nearly meaningless on binary files anyway) for representing large files as their SHA-256 equivalent values on a remote server. That's exactly what git-annex does. Except it can host on your own servers, or S3, or Tahoe-LAFS, or rsync.net, etc. And it's free software. And it supports multiple servers for the same repo, so you have redundancy. Adding an S3 remote is just s…

And if you want the simplest solution (ie store blobs with the rest of your code), gitlab offers git-annex compatibility ( https://about.gitlab.com/2015/02/17/gitlab-annex-solves-the-... )

Post by sytse » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:14 PM UTC

mdlowman wrote: post #17

ot wrote: post #12

> Every user and organization on GitHub.com with Git LFS enabled will begin with 1 GB of free file storage and a monthly bandwidth quota of 1 GB. Does this mean that with the free tier I can upload a 1GB file which can be downloaded at most once a month ? Even a small 10MB file, which fits comfortably in a git repo, could be downloaded only 100 times a month. Maybe they meant 1TB bandwidth?

I would suspect the point is rather that you have a bunch of megabyte range files, and you rarely update them and don't have to sync. But for most workflows this feature seems targeted at, the free tier seems insufficient.