From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261758AbVDZTwc (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:52:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261759AbVDZTwb (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:52:31 -0400 Received: from ns1.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:20916 "EHLO mx1.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261758AbVDZTw1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:52:27 -0400 From: Chris Mason To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:52:23 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 Cc: Mike Taht , Matt Mackall , linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org References: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> <200504261339.34680.mason@suse.com> In-Reply-To: <200504261339.34680.mason@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200504261552.24100.mason@suse.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 26 April 2005 13:39, Chris Mason wrote: > As an example, here's the time to apply 300 patches on ext3. This was with > my packed patches applied, but vanilla git should show similar percentage > differences. > > data=writeback 32s > data=ordered 44s > > With a long enough test, data=ordered should fall into the noise, but 10-40 > second runs really show it. I get much closer numbers if the patches directory is already in cache...data=ordered means more contention for the disk when trying to read the patches. If the patches are hot in the cache data=writeback and data=ordered both take about 30s. You still see some writes in data=writeback, but these are mostly async log commits. The same holds true for vanilla git as well, although it needs 1m7s to apply from a hot cache (sorry, couldn't resist the plug ;) -chris