threads / discuss / 1987

local clone much slower than remote clone

Subject: local clone much slower than remote clone

## tl;dr

3 messages between Oct 1, 2005 and Oct 1, 2005.

replies: 2people: 3as markdown or json

Jeff Garzik· Oct 1, 2005, 02:45 UTC · lore

Case 1: remote clone

time git clone rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git scsi-sas-2.6 ... real 3m36.432s user 0m0.584s sys 0m0.656s

Case 2: local clone time git clone /spare/repo/linux-2.6 scsi-sas-2.6 ... Packing 99084 objects Unpacking 99084 objects ... real 4m31.876s user 4m43.618s sys 0m40.047s

Downloading an entire kernel tree over cable modem is almost a minute faster than a local clone! IMHO the local clone should just hardlink the packs and objects, and be done with it.

	Jeff

Yasushi SHOJI· Oct 1, 2005, 04:10 UTC · re: Jeff Garzik · lore

Re: local clone much slower than remote clone

At Fri, 30 Sep 2005 22:45:54 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> 
> Downloading an entire kernel tree over cable modem is almost a minute 
> faster than a local clone!  IMHO the local clone should just hardlink 
> the packs and objects, and be done with it.

    git clone -l

perhaps?  -s would be nice too.
--
        yashi

Junio C Hamano· Oct 1, 2005, 05:57 UTC · re: Jeff Garzik · lore

Re: local clone much slower than remote clone

Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> writes:

> time git clone /spare/repo/linux-2.6 scsi-sas-2.6

    $ git clone -l -s -n

would be the fastest.

Yes, -n is an irrelevant cheating ;-).