Re: Cloning speed comparison, round II

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Nov 12, 2005, 21:30 UTC
Message-ID: <20051112213002.GI30496@pasky.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511121229340.3263@g5.osdl.org>

Dear diary, on Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 09:31:32PM CET, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> said that...

Show 6 quoted lines

> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > So the fact is: rsync is often slower, and _always_ less capable. 
> 
> Side note: a lot of the rsync problems are non-issues for the initial 
> clone.

But based on my "machine X" tests, git is as fast as git+ssh (which is as it should be), which means it is even slightly faster than rsync, even for the initial commit.

> That initial clone is in fact the only time I think rsync can be a good 
> idea, especially if the server end is repacking regularly.

Yes, the only advantage of rsync I can see is that you get it all packed. Well, I think this only means we are doing something wrong, and perhaps we should automatically pack as well.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.