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

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > 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.