From: Matt Mackall Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 20:11:16 GMT Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull Message-ID: <20050512201116.GC5914@waste.org> In-Reply-To: <20050512182340.GA324@pasky.ji.cz> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:23:41PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter > where Matt Mackall 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? :-) ..because I get a headache every time I try to figure out how to use git? :-P Seriously, have a pointer to how this works? -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.