Re: [Census] So who uses git?

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: Feb 1, 2006, 19:20 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0602011909330.6498@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601311747360.7301@g5.osdl.org>

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Sounds like every single stat() will go out the wire. I forget what the
> Linux NFS client does, but I _think_ it has a metadata timeout that avoids
> this. But it might be as bad under NFS.
>
> Has anybody used git over NFS? If it's this bad (or even close to), I
> guess the "mark files as up-to-date in the index" approach is a really
> good idea..

As it happens, yes ... I can't say that I've noticed git being particularly slow, but then - I've not tried running git with a local repos ... ;)

using a recentish 2.6 kernel repos, directly on the server I get:

server: linux-2.6>time git update-index --refresh

real 0m0.067s user 0m0.015s sys 0m0.052s

then against the same repos over NFS, I get:

client: linux-2.6>time git update-index --refresh

real 0m1.578s user 0m0.018s sys 0m0.366s

and if I do it from the client again soon afterward I get:

client: linux-2.6>time git update-index --refresh

real 0m0.145s user 0m0.012s sys 0m0.118s

Show 6 quoted lines

>
> Of course, the whole point of git is that you should keep your repository
> close, but sometimes NFS - or similar - is enforced upon you by other
> issues, like the fact that the powers-that-be want anonymous workstations
> and everybody should work with a home-directory automounted over NFS..
>

-- 
Julian

  ---
You know it's going to be a bad day when you want to put on the clothes
you wore home from the party and there aren't any.