Re: Surely 'bzr branch' shouldn't be this slow?

[Stephen Berman <Stephen.Berman@gmx.net>]

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:37:15 +0100 Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Yavor Doganov <yavor@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> I don't think the time it takes to make the original branch (or a
>>> branch outside the shared repo) is CPU-bound.
>>
>> It certainly is!  I've been fighting for 3 days now to branch on one
>> of my most powerful machines at home (AMD Duron 1.3 GHz, 500 MB RAM)
>> without success, and I gave up today.  Both sftp/http methods get
>> stuck around 275/300 MB, and the machine is experiencing sky high
>> loads; I can't even login.  I'm tired of killing bzr and restarting
>> the process; it always fails.
>>
>> At work, on a Pentium IV 2 GHz/1G RAM it took me about an hour and a
>> half with a slower connection.
>>
>> I guess if I compress the shared repo and scp it to my home machine,
>> it would work, right?
>
>
> Just a comment: I have not even tried yet to use bzr. According to
> what I am reading it looks impossible at the moment.
>
> Am I right or?

Maybe I was lucky, but I successfully branched the trunk via http last
night, on my first try.  It took about 50 minutes for bzr to download
281 MB, then, as reported above, it appeared to stall for more than 10
minutes, but the bzr process continued to consume 80-90% CPU.  (This is
with an Athlon XP 2100+ (1.7 GHz) and 2 GB RAM over a rather slow
wireless connection.)  Just as I was about to kill it, it finished.  I
then made a quickfixes branch from the (now local) trunk, which took
only about 10 seconds, and bootstrapped from the quickfixes branch
without a problem.

Steve Berman