From: Jeff Garzik Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 18:23:29 GMT Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull Message-ID: <428793A1.5070004@pobox.com> In-Reply-To: <20050515173923.GK5914@waste.org> Matt Mackall wrote: > 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 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