From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 18:23:41 GMT
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull
Message-ID: <20050512182340.GA324@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20050512094406.GZ5914@waste.org>

Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter
where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that...
> Mercurial is more than 10 times as bandwidth efficient and
> considerably more I/O efficient. On the server side, rsync uses about
> twice as much CPU time as the Mercurial server and has about 10 times
> the I/O and pagecache footprint as well.
> 
> Mercurial is also much smarter than rsync at determining what
> outstanding changesets exist. Here's an empty pull as a demonstration:
> 
>  $ time hg merge hg://selenic.com/linux-hg/
>  retrieving changegroup
> 
>  real    0m0.363s
>  user    0m0.083s
>  sys     0m0.007s
> 
> That's a single http request and a one line response.

So, what about comparing it with something comparable, say git pull over
HTTP? :-)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor