From: "Sean" <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
To: "Matt Mackall" <mpm@selenic.com>
Cc: "Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@osdl.org>,
"linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 04:40:16 -0400 (EDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1680.10.10.10.24.1114764016.squirrel@linux1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050429074043.GT21897@waste.org>
On Fri, April 29, 2005 3:40 am, Matt Mackall said:
> This trade-off FAILS, as my benchmarks against Mercurial have shown.
> It trades 10x disk space for maybe 10% performance relative to my
> approach. Meanwhile, it makes a bunch of other things hard, namely the
> ones I've listed. Yes, you can hack around them, but the back end will
> still be bloated.
But since performance can be seen as worth so much more than disk, this
might still be a good tradeoff, even given your numbers.
> Mercurial is even younger (Linus had a few days' head start, not to
> mention a bunch of help), and it is already as fast as git, relatively
> easy to use, much simpler, and much more space and bandwidth
> efficient.
There are some really nice things about the git design, not just
performance related. However, i have a git repository going back to the
start of 2.4 and for my uses there aren't any performance problems. (okay
fsck-cache, gets oom killed but i suspect that can be fixed).
No _argument_ is going to change the fundamental design of git, it is what
it is. Git started out as just an interim fix and maybe that's all it
will turn out to be. But it's working pretty well so far, with lots of
room for improvement over time, and in my estimation Linus has made a
pretty compelling argument for the design tradeoffs he's made.
Sean
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-29 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 126+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-26 0:41 Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks Matt Mackall
2005-04-26 1:49 ` Daniel Phillips
2005-04-26 2:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 2:30 ` Mike Taht
2005-04-26 3:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 4:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 11:13 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 15:09 ` Magnus Damm
2005-04-26 15:38 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 16:23 ` Magnus Damm
2005-04-26 18:18 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 20:56 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-26 21:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-26 22:56 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-26 23:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 15:01 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 15:13 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 18:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 19:01 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 19:57 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-04-27 20:06 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 20:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 20:39 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 20:47 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 20:55 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 21:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 21:06 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 21:32 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-04-27 19:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-04-27 6:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-27 21:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-27 21:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 16:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 17:39 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 19:52 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 18:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-26 20:30 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-26 16:11 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-26 4:01 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-26 4:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 4:09 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-04-26 4:22 ` Andreas Gal
2005-04-26 4:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 6:01 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 6:40 ` Sean
2005-04-29 7:40 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 8:40 ` Sean [this message]
2005-04-29 14:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 15:18 ` Morten Welinder
2005-04-29 16:52 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-02 16:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-02 19:02 ` Sean
2005-05-02 22:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 22:30 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-02 22:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 0:00 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 2:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 3:29 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 4:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 4:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 4:27 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 8:45 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-04-29 15:44 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 15:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 17:34 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 18:08 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 18:33 ` Sean
2005-04-29 18:54 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 19:13 ` Sean
2005-04-29 19:22 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 19:28 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 19:47 ` Noel Maddy
2005-04-29 19:54 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 20:13 ` Andrew Timberlake-Newell
2005-04-29 20:26 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 20:57 ` Andrew Timberlake-Newell
2005-04-29 20:16 ` Morgan Schweers
2005-04-29 20:21 ` Noel Maddy
2005-04-29 20:42 ` git network protocol David Lang
2005-04-29 21:15 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-04-29 20:44 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Tom Lord
2005-04-29 21:57 ` Denys Duchier
2005-04-29 20:29 ` Signed commit vulnerabilities? (was: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark) Kevin Smith
2005-04-29 21:45 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Horst von Brand
2005-05-02 21:06 ` Tom Lord
2005-05-03 0:24 ` Kevin Smith
2005-05-02 16:15 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-29 16:37 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 19:12 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 19:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 20:23 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 21:20 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 16:46 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-29 20:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-29 22:30 ` Olivier Galibert
2005-04-29 22:47 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-29 20:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-29 20:39 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-30 2:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-30 15:20 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-30 16:37 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-05-02 15:49 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-02 16:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-05-03 17:40 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-04 2:10 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark (/usr/bin/env again) David A. Wheeler
2005-05-02 16:17 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Andrea Arcangeli
2005-05-02 16:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 17:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-02 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 18:17 ` Edgar Toernig
2005-05-02 20:54 ` Sam Ravnborg
2005-05-02 17:20 ` Ryan Anderson
2005-05-02 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 21:17 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-03 17:43 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-30 14:44 Adam J. Richter
2005-04-30 16:06 ` Matt Mackall
[not found] <3YQn9-8qX-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <3ZLEF-56n-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <3ZM7L-5ot-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <3ZN3P-69A-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <3ZNdz-6gK-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
2005-05-03 1:16 ` Bodo Eggert <harvested.in.lkml@posting.7eggert.dyndns.org>
2005-05-03 1:29 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 16:22 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-03 17:14 ` Rene Scharfe
2005-05-04 17:51 ` Bill Davidsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1680.10.10.10.24.1114764016.squirrel@linux1 \
--to=seanlkml@sympatico.ca \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.