Re: Git benchmarks at OpenOffice.org wiki
- From
- Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 2, 2007, 10:58 UTC
- Message-ID
- <200705021158.04481.andyparkins@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705021046230.2425@reaper.quantumfyre.co.uk>
On Wednesday 2007 May 02, Julian Phillips wrote:
> A fully packed clone of the OOo git repo was indeed 1.3G, and the entrire > checkout + repo was indeed 8.5G (using git 1.5.1.2).
I'm more confused now then. I assumed the figures were accurate, but they cannot be:
CVS git SVN Size of data on the server 8.5G 1.3G n/a Size of checkout 1.4G 2.8G 1.5G
I don't doubt the 1.3G on the server - and assume that is fully packed. The
checkout sizes are suspicious though. Is that 2.8G packed?
- If it is, then we can deduce that this is a repo+source size, since the
server is packed size+0 therefore the size of the source tree is
2.8G - 1.3G = 1.5G
In which case the other figures are wrong:
- CVS checkout is 1.4G - impossible, the source tree is 1.5G. And where is
the overhead of the CVS directories which would make it more than 1.5G?
- SVN checkout overhead is always _at least_ the size of the source tree
because it keeps a pristine copy of HEAD. If the source tree is 1.5G,
then this figure should be at least 3G.
- If it is not, then we're back to "I don't believe that git was packed"Something smells fishy here - either the source tree size is included in some, but not in others or the git repository wasn't packed.
Andy
-- Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET andyparkins@gmail.com