From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Westby Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel,gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general Subject: Re: Emacs repository benchmark: bzr and git (rerun) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:17:53 +0000 Message-ID: <1205929074.32007.4.camel@flash> References: <20080318154316.GA6242@mithlond.arda.local> <200803191337.42928.tlikonen@iki.fi> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1205929230 26624 80.91.229.12 (19 Mar 2008 12:20:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:20:30 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bazaar@lists.canonical.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Teemu Likonen Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 19 13:20:49 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JbxHj-0006AS-5I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 13:20:47 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbxH9-0003KU-6O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:20:11 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbxFE-0002IV-LW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:18:12 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JbxFC-0002GO-DO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:18:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JbxFC-0002G2-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:18:10 -0400 Original-Received: from jameswestby.net ([89.145.97.141]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JbxFB-0001DS-OK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 08:18:09 -0400 Original-Received: from 77-99-12-164.cable.ubr13.azte.blueyonder.co.uk ([77.99.12.164] helo=[192.168.1.109]) by jameswestby.net with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1JbxF9-0007Nh-BN; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:18:07 +0000 In-Reply-To: <200803191337.42928.tlikonen@iki.fi> X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:92975 gmane.comp.version-control.bazaar-ng.general:38961 Archived-At: On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 13:37 +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote: > Hey! I realised that the emacs bzr repository was not fully optimized > with "bzr pack" command. By running this command it really improves the > performance of bzr; now I'm getting similar numbers as some of you. I > really apologise for the misleading information I have spread. I want > to correct my mistakes by running my tests again (see below). > > This raises questions though. I had downloaded the premade emacs bzr > repo from and it seems to have its repo > pretty much optimized since it performs much better than my previous > benchmark. I had done almost nothing with the repository after that, > just some bzr-pulls and performance tests. How come the emacs bzr > repository slows down so much and so quickly? My experience is that you > definitely want to run "bzr pack" quite often. Hi, Thanks for updating us. I wanted to point out that bzr automatically repacks on commit every so often, this means that the performance degredation should be bounded, but yes, you will often be able to speed it up by running "pack" manually. In recent versions (I don't know which exactly, sorry) git has also added the auto-repack on commit. I don't know how their strategy differs from bzr's, but they should both ensure that it never gets really bad. I do think the effects of repacking bzr are very drastic, so it is probably worth investigating where the slowdown was. Do you still have your .bzr/repository/ from the old tests? Is there anything in .bzr/repository/obsolete_packs/ ? That would let us know just how many packs you were running with. Thanks, James