Re: Git benchmarks at OpenOffice.org wiki

From: Jan Holesovsky <kendy@suse.cz>
Date: May 2, 2007, 14:37 UTC
Message-ID: <200705021637.02057.kendy@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <200705021158.04481.andyparkins@gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

On Wednesday 02 May 2007 12:58, Andy Parkins wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> 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?

Unfortunately I don't have the _exact_ numbers here any more so I cannot prove it ;-) - but this is a rounding problem [CVS checkout is slightly more than 1.4G]. Similarly, overhead of of CVS directories is 0 when we count in gigabytes.

> - 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.

Yes, this surprises me as well. I've heard about some improvements in the recent SVN, but 0.1M sounds very small.

>  - If it is not, then we're back to "I don't believe that git was packed"

It was, IIRC with 'git-repack -a -d -f'.

> Something smells fishy here - either the source tree size is included in
> some, but not in others or the git repository wasn't packed.

As I wrote, I am looking forward to seeing the SVN tree myself for further testing.

Regards, Jan