RE: Git vs Monotone

From: Craig L. Ching <cching@mqsoftware.com>
Date: Jul 31, 2008, 19:11 UTC
Message-ID: <63BEA5E623E09F4D92233FB12A9F79430238A5EB@emailmn.mqsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080731190209.GA8372@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Show 23 quoted lines

> -----Original Message-----
> From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org 
> [mailto:git-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Jeff King
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 2:02 PM
> To: sverre@rabbelier.nl
> Cc: Git Mailinglist
> Subject: Re: Git vs Monotone
> 
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 08:13:59PM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
> 
> > If I clone the git mirror of our monotone repository, I find a 
> > checkout size of 148 MB after git-repack--running git-gc also 
> > increased the size by 2 MB, but I'll stick with the initial 
> checkout 
> > size for fairness. If I multiply this by my 11 checkouts, I 
> will have
> > 1628 MB. This is even more compelling for me, as I now save 
> 728 MB of 
> > disk space with monotone."
> 
> Yikes. This is not even remotely a fair comparison to 
> monotone, which is keeping a central db.
>

I think it is a fair comparison, but as you point out, the author is doing the comparison wrong. Monotone's "central db" (as you call it) is really equivalent to git's object database.

Show 15 quoted lines

> > I'm in the process of cloning the repo myself, and will 
> check if doing 
> > a more aggressive (high --window and --depth values) repack 
> will get 
> > us below that 148, but I'm thinking it's just that big a 
> repo. Anyway,
> 
> It's much better than that. I just cloned
> 
>   git://github.com/felipec/pidgin-clone.git
> 
> and the _whole thing_ is 148M, including the working tree. 
> His object db is only 88M. So he can do his 11 trees in 61 * 
> 11 + 88 = 759M, saving 141M over monotone.
>

Right, that's been my experience too, that git is smaller than monotone. The author just needs to compare eqivalent concepts ;-)

> -Peff
> --

Cheers, Craig