Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks

From: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2005, 19:52 UTC
Message-ID: <200504261552.24100.mason@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <200504261339.34680.mason@suse.com>

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 13:39, Chris Mason wrote:

Show 9 quoted lines

> 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