Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark
- From
- Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
- Date
- Apr 29, 2005, 16:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20050429165232.GV21897@waste.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <118833cc05042908181d09bdfd@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 11:18:20AM -0400, Morten Welinder wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> > I had three design goals. "disk space" wasn't one of them > > And, if at some point it should become an issue, it's fixable. Since > access to objects is fairly centralized and since they are > immutable, it would be quite simple to move an arbitrary selection > of the objects into some other storage form which could take > similarities between objects into account.
This is not a fix, this is a band-aid. A fix is fitting all the data in 10 times less space without sacrificing too much performance.
> So disk space and its cousin number-of-files are both when-and-if > problems. And not scary ones at that.
But its sibling bandwidth _is_ a problem. The delta between 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 in git terms will be much larger than a _full kernel tarball_. Simply checking in patch-2.6.11 on top of 2.6.10 as a single changeset takes 41M. Break that into a thousand overlapping deltas (ie the way it is actually done) and it will be much larger.
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.