Re: Git vs Monotone
- From
- Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 31, 2008, 19:19 UTC
- Message-ID
- <bd6139dc0807311219h670f782cm8bed74bed2b4558@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20080731190209.GA8372@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 21:02, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, that's rather unfair indeed, counting that way he'd have to add the 229MB for the Monotone db too ;).
> And I am repacking with insane depth and window right now to see if we > can get it smaller (though really, it is not that big a deal, since the > size is dominated by his 11 working trees).
I repacked with --depth=100 and --window=100, I tried out 500 at first but it was just insanely slow (on a VM with one 2.4Ghz Core available). This resulted in a .git dir of 76MB. With that dir I did the following: $mkdir pidgins $git clone --no-hardlinks --bare pidgin pidgin-bare $mv pidgin-bare pidgins $cd pidgins $for i in 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11; do git clone pidgin-bare pidgin$i; done $ du -sh . 742M .
So... monotone, eat your heart out ;).
-- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier