BitBucket and Large Projects

Greetings all. I’ve been using GDrive for backups for a while now. Always meaning to get round to using source control. So I’ve opted to use BitBucket. Played with it in the past, got a better understanding of it now.

So what I’m wondering is… Is it ok to use for large projects?

I have two projects I am working on. One is only 20MB on bitbucket, the other over 600MB.
The larger project is going to get much much larger. Due to large maps, textures and such.

I read that Bitbuckets max size is 2GB hard limit. Anyone know if that is per file? Or the entire repo?

BitBucket are also testing their Large File Storage

Opinions and suggestions please.

Cheers all!

If it is just you working on the project, git is viable.

If your binary files change alot, you might want to look in to using git-lfs. (In order to avoid huge repo size) This uses external storage for the binary files. I believe bitbucket supports it (I know github does)

If you have a team of more than one or two, then I highly recommend switching to Perforce. The built-in UE editor support is nice, Perforce allows exclusive locking of binary assets only while supporting simultaneous checkout of source files, and Perforce solves the repo size issue.

Perforce is also free, although you have to invest time to learn it, and optionally get a server to host it.

Ya BitBucket is 2GB max for the entire repo. This is true even if you pay.

Gitlab is 10GB max for the repo and is free as well. I think Gitlab supports git-lfs as well.

Right. So BitBucket vs GitLab is a no brainer when it comes to UE4. GitLab has 5 times the storage space, Unlimited collaborators, all private too.
As far as I can tell its also supported LFS for longer (BitBucket LFS is still in Beta and will be for paid customers only when done).

I’ve looked in to perforce in the past. But I simply cannot find any free hosts.

Also, wouldnt Git be useless for blueprints? To begin with I am mostly using blueprints to prototype stuff. So they are binary and can’t be compared right?

Cheers all!

Ya they are binary unfortunately. You can still benefit from having them in source control by being able to roll back versions. Having them in source control with good commit messages can save you from time to time.

Bitbucket engineer here. Thanks for considering us! I’m not here to make a sales pitch, but I thought it might be useful to chime in and clarify a couple of things:

  • We do have a hard 2GB cap on Bitbucket repositories, but LFS files are counted under a separate quota.
  • Git LFS is in beta and we haven’t figured out pricing yet, but afaik (though I’m not on the PM team) there will be continue to be support for free accounts after general launch.
  • Free accounts currently get 1GB of LFS storage (You can read a bit more about the current storage policies here.)

A couple of reasons you may consider Bitbucket vs GitLab if you’re interested in using Git LFS:

  • Our Bitbucket’s Git LFS implementation supports both SSH and HTTPS. GitLab doesn’t yet support SSH, so you’ll have to push/pull via HTTPS.
  • Bitbucket supports deleting Git LFS files from the server. I don’t think GitLab or GitHub support deleting LFS files once pushed, so there is no way to reclaim used space if you need to.

Git LFS itself is pretty rad as a technology, regardless of which host you decide to use. I use it now for anything that’s where the content is likely to grow past a few megabytes (games, blender projects, keynote presentations, my blog, graphics-heavy websites). I gave a presentation about Git LFS at LinuxCon a few weeks ago if you’re interested in learning a bit more about it.