From: Michael J Gruber <michaeljgruber+gmane@fastmail.fm>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 08:47:09 GMT
Subject: Re: update-index --assume-unchanged doesn't make things go fast
Message-ID: <g3vl2l$qn7$1@ger.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <32541b130806251102l6e71a050o82fbd4f272d1d23f@mail.gmail.com>

Avery Pennarun venit, vidit, dixit 25.06.2008 20:02:
> On 6/25/08, Michael J Gruber <michaeljgruber+gmane@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> 4) My idea is to eventually --assume-unchanged my whole repository,
>>> then write a cheesy daemon that uses the Win32 dnotify-equivalent to
>>> watch for files that get updated and then selectively
>>> --no-assume-unchanged files that it gets notified about.  That would
>>> avoid the need to ever synchronously scan the whole repo for changes,
>>> thus making my git-Win32 experience much faster and more enjoyable.
>>> (This daemon ought to be possible to run on Linux as well, for similar
>>> improvements on gigantic repositories.  Also note that TortoiseSVN for
>>> Windows does something similar to track file status updates, so this
>>> isn't *just* me being crazy.)
>>  Looks like users on slow NFS would profit, too. Hate to say it, but hg
>> feels faster on (slow) NFS than git. Yet I use git, for other reasons ;)
> 
> Hmm, can you do dnotify over NFS?
> 
> I'd like to know how hg goes any faster.  As far as I can see, git is
> going as fast as can be without some kind of daemon or other magic.
> (Except for my point #3, which seems relatively minor.)

I haven't done any measurements, maybe I should; getting consistent 
results would require setting up an isolated NFS environment, though.

The thing is that hg is very careful about serializing and minimizing 
disk I/O, whereas git is very clever about delegating stuff to the 
kernel and processing data efficiently. In my work environment I have to 
keep my repos on NFS. For heavy history rewriting I resort to /tmp or 
/dev/shm temporarily. But git status is kinda slow on NFS. I don't know 
about [di]?notify over NFS.

Michael