[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Official Git mirror?

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Official Git mirror?
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:56:50 +0200

> From: Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:09:03 +0100
> >   bzr:
> >   real    0m14.437s
> >   user    0m2.516s
> >   sys     0m0.308s
> >
> >   git:
> >   real    13m59.655s
> >   user    7m55.702s
> >   sys     0m18.321s
> The times quoted above seems wrong (0m14s for bzr?)

Yes, sorry.  A copy/paste error.  I remembered one of my trials took
14 min.

> I have no issues with your recommendation of using bzr. I'm discussing
> your assertion about bzr protocol's efficiency compared to git.

I didn't assert that, at least didn't mean to.  I interpreted the OP's
complaint as referring to the elapsed time it takes, and answered
that.  Sorry if my wording was misleading.

> >> Git keeps the pipe downloading data at full speed all the time, while
> >> bzr fluctuates a lot, including several long pauses, possibly because
> >> the server is doing some CPU-intensive work for preparing the data.
> >
> > The nosmart+ option prevents the server from wasting CPU cycles when
> > everything is needed to be downloaded anyway.
> Then the question is: why is it not enabled by default when bzr clones a
> branch from scratch?

I don't think the Bazaar developers saw this kind of data until now.
You will see a discussion about this on the Bazaar mailing list.  I
hope they will find a solution soon.  I also hope the server on
savannah will be upgraded to something similar to Launchpad.

> Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost
> unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook.

That's not true, at least not wrt CPU.  Your own data refutes this:

    real    17m41.424s
    user    7m56.250s
    sys     0m8.240s

Here are a few of my data points, with different machines and
different network bandwidths:

    real    49m17.067s
    user    14m36.890s
    sys     0m14.250s

    real    01h04m01.629s
    user    00h20m54.484s
    sys     00h00m57.046s

    real    01h10m09.873s
    user    00h40m22.046s
    sys     00h05m36.921s

    real    16m30.189s
    user    15m22.090s
    sys     0m14.560s

    real    02h28m35.032s
    user    00h20m36.921s
    sys     00h00m50.750s

    real    30m23.956s
    user    11m33.760s
    sys     0m17.730s

In all but one case, the CPU time is 1/3 to 1/7 of the elapsed time.
That's not how a CPU-bound app looks like.

> Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful
> ones?

No, they are on faster networks.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]