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

[Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Jason Earl <jearl@notengoamigos.org> wrote:
> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jason Earl <jearl@notengoamigos.org> wrote:
>>> Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>>>> From: Lennart Borgman <lennart.borgman@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:37:15 +0100
>>>>>> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's both possible and practical.  I use it on 2 different Windows
>>>>> machines and on 1 GNU/Linux one, and it works quite well.  The initial
>>>>> "bzr branch" takes a long time, but that's all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And with a 2Mbit/s connection and an Alan style pc, 1GB RAM?
>>>
>>> I use it with a netbook with 1GB of Ram and no swap.  It works fine.  I
>>> will admit that I have switched to pulling from launchpad, but I did my
>>> initial pull from Savannah.
>>
>> How long did the initial pull take on this machine? (Sorry if you have
>> told already. Are the figures perhaps on the wiki?) How fast is your
>> internet?
>
> Just for fun I did it again into a new repository.  While there were
> times when my netbook struggled, for the most part it appeared that my
> crappy wireless network connection was the bottleneck.
>
> time bzr branch http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/emacs/trunk/ trunk
> Branched 99273 revision(s).
>
> real    56m30.346s
> user    34m10.160s
> sys     0m32.638s
>
> Then I tested to see how long it took to see if there were more
> revisions.  There weren't any.
>
> time bzr pull
> Using saved parent location: http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/r/emacs/trunk/
> No revisions to pull.
>
> real    0m8.109s
> user    0m1.672s
> sys     0m0.272s
>
> This is on a wireless network.
>
>> And doing the initial pull from Launchpad instead how much faster is it?
>
> Launchpad actually took at little longer:
>
> time bzr pull --remember lp:emacs
> No revisions to pull.
>
> real    0m10.246s
> user    0m1.108s
> sys     0m0.180s
>
> The advantage of using launchpad is that you will never get the
> pathologically bad updates where bzr pulls down 100M of data to make 2M
> worth of changes.  The disadvantage is that it is a mirror that updates
> only every 8 hours.


Thanks Jason, very clear and instructive. The road for me at the
moment seems to be Launchpad. The 8 hours does not matter right now,
but the the 100 MB does.