Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull
- From
- Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 15, 2005, 18:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <428793A1.5070004@pobox.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050515173923.GK5914@waste.org>
Matt Mackall wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:22:19AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: > >>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:54:05 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: >> >>>Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:57:35PM CEST, I got a letter >>>where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that... >>> >>>>Does this need an HTTP request (and round trip) per object? It appears >>>>to. That's 2200 requests/round trips for my 800 patch benchmark. >> >>>Yes it does. On the other side, it needs no server-side CGI. But I guess >>>it should be pretty easy to write some kind of server-side CGI streamer, >>>and it would then easily take just a single HTTP request (telling the >>>server the commit ID and receiving back all the objects). >> >> I don't understand what was wrong with Jeff Garzik's previous >>suggestion of using http/1.1 pipelining to coalesce the round trips. > > > You can't do pipelining if you can't look ahead far enough to fill the pipe.
Even if you cannot fill a pipeline, HTTP/1.1 is sufficiently useful simply by removing the per-request connection overhead.
Jeff