Re: Google Code: Support for Mercurial and Analysis of Git and Mercurial

From: A Large Angry SCM <gitzilla@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 26, 2009, 17:33 UTC
Message-ID: <49F49AF0.1020301@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0904261854460.10279@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, 26 Apr 2009, A Large Angry SCM wrote:
> 
>> Another important criteria was which, both or neither of Git and Hg 
>> would actually work and perform well on top of Google Code's underling 
>> storage system and except to mention they would be using Bigtable, the 
>> report did not discuss this. Git on top of Bigtable will not perform 
>> well.
> 
> Actually, did we not arrive at the conclusion that it could perform well 
> at least with the filesystem layer on top of big table, but even better if 
> the big tables stored certain chunks (not really all that different from 
> the chunks needed for mirror-sync!)?
> 
> Back when I discussed this with a Googler, it was all too obvious that 
> they are not interested (and in the meantime I understand why, see my 
> other mail).
>

I don't remember the mirror-sync discussion. But I do remember that when the discussion turned to implementing a filesystem on top of Bigtable that would not cause performance problems for Git, my response was that you'd still be much better off going to GFS directly instead of faking a filesystem on top of Bigtable without all of the Bigtable limitations.

Bigtable _is_ appealing to implement the Git object store on. It's too bad the latency in Bigtable would make it horribly slow.