(no subject)

(no subject)

[Richard Stallman]

bzr was slow on savannah due to the use of sftp.
Do people find bzr satisfactory now?


-- 
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org

Re: (no subject)

[Werner LEMBERG]

> bzr was slow on savannah due to the use of sftp.
> Do people find bzr satisfactory now?

Well, I'm only doing `bzr pull', and it seems indeed to be more
responsive than previously.  However, the amount of data transferred
by bzr is still excessively large.  For example, updating from
rev. 101894 (Oct. 10th) to today's rev. 101979 (with `bzr pull') used
more than 20MByte!  Looking at the amount of changes actually applied
to the repository, I estimate that git would need only approx. 200 to
300kByte ^[$(Q#|^[(B this is 70 to 100 times less...

It would be great if someone using an emacs git repository could
verify my estimation.

git compresses the data on the remote side before transferring it.
Does bzr omit that step?  Maybe I'm missing a bzr option?  Otherwise,
it looks like a severe flaw in the design.  Given that many users
(including me currently) use mobile internet connections which are
sometimes extremely slow due to weak signal strength, bandwidth *is*
an issue even today.


    Werner

Re: (no subject)

[Werner LEMBERG]

> Well, I'm only doing `bzr pull', and it seems indeed to be more
> responsive than previously.  However, the amount of data transferred
> by bzr is still excessively large.  For example, updating from
> rev. 101894 (Oct. 10th) to today's rev. 101979 (with `bzr pull')
> used more than 20MByte!

I forgot to mention that I'm currently using bzr version 2.0.5 in case
this makes a difference w.r.t. the amount of transferred data.


    Werner

Re: Is bzr+ssh's speed satisfactory?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:10:01 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm only doing `bzr pull', and it seems indeed to be more
> > responsive than previously.  However, the amount of data transferred
> > by bzr is still excessively large.  For example, updating from
> > rev. 101894 (Oct. 10th) to today's rev. 101979 (with `bzr pull')
> > used more than 20MByte!
> 
> I forgot to mention that I'm currently using bzr version 2.0.5 in case
> this makes a difference w.r.t. the amount of transferred data.

I doubt that: I have Bazaar 2.2.1, and the combined size of the data
between Oct 10 and yesterday was 19MB or me.

Re: Is bzr+ssh's speed satisfactory?

[Eli Zaretskii]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp-2004, Size: 920 bytes --]

> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:08:17 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org>
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> However, the amount of data transferred
> by bzr is still excessively large.  For example, updating from
> rev. 101894 (Oct. 10th) to today's rev. 101979 (with `bzr pull') used
> more than 20MByte!  Looking at the amount of changes actually applied
> to the repository, I estimate that git would need only approx. 200 to
> 300kByte ^[$(Q#|^[(B this is 70 to 100 times less...
> 
> It would be great if someone using an emacs git repository could
> verify my estimation.
> 
> git compresses the data on the remote side before transferring it.
> Does bzr omit that step?  Maybe I'm missing a bzr option?  Otherwise,
> it looks like a severe flaw in the design.

These questions are better sent to the Bazaar list
(bazaar@lists.canonical.com), where the Bazaar developers can give
definitive answers to them.

Re: (no subject)

[Richard Stallman]

    Well, I'm only doing `bzr pull', and it seems indeed to be more
    responsive than previously.  However, the amount of data transferred
    by bzr is still excessively large.  For example, updating from
    rev. 101894 (Oct. 10th) to today's rev. 101979 (with `bzr pull') used
    more than 20MByte!  Looking at the amount of changes actually applied
    to the repository, I estimate that git would need only approx. 200 to
    300kByte   this is 70 to 100 times less...

    It would be great if someone using an emacs git repository could
    verify my estimation.

It would be interesting to set up parallel repositories, the latest
bzr and git, and update them at the same times.  Then it would be
possible to rigorously compare the amount of data transferred.

    git compresses the data on the remote side before transferring it.
    Does bzr omit that step?  Maybe I'm missing a bzr option?

It might be that the compression occurs in scp, and you're measuring
the amount of raw data rather than the amount actually transmitted.

But that's just a speculation.  It would be interesting to find out
for certain.

-- 
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org

Re: Is bzr+ssh's speed satisfactory?

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:59:53 -0400
> 
> bzr was slow on savannah due to the use of sftp.
> Do people find bzr satisfactory now?

It is significantly faster, especially with frequent updates.  Where
previously I had to wait up to 5-6 minutes for an update of 3-4 days
worth of development, now it's down to 1-2 minutes or so, depending on
the amount of files that were modified.  Where previously it took 2
minutes to update a few files that were modified during several hours
since the last update, it now takes 25 seconds.  Previously it would
take about 40 seconds to get the "tree is up to date" result; now it
takes 10 to 15.

This is with a 3.5Mbps link, with other jobs running on the same
machine and using the link simultaneously.

I don't remember the exact timings of CVS, but I think the numbers are
comparable, perhaps even slightly faster.

Re: (no subject)

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> bzr was slow on savannah due to the use of sftp.
> Do people find bzr satisfactory now?

It is much improved and personally I find it satisfactory now, yes.

bzr on Savannah

[Glenn Morris]

> > bzr was slow on savannah due to the use of sftp.
> > Do people find bzr satisfactory now?
> 
> It is much improved and personally I find it satisfactory now, yes.

PS that comment was about basic bzr functionality. One service that
Savannah still does not provide is the ability to browse bzr
repositories via the web. The service that provides this is called
"Loggerhead", analogous to "ViewVC" for CVS repositories.
Several GNU projects have asked Savannah to implement this over many
months. Since roughly the start of the year, attempting to browse the
relevant page on Savannah simply reports:

http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/emacs

"loggerhead disabled due to instability; if you're interesting in
maintaining it, please contact us"

This issue is not as important as the sftp one was, but I think it is
important for Savannah to provide this service for Bzr repositories,
as it seems to do for every other version control system it supports.
This is the last gap in their bzr support that I can think of.

Re: bzr on Savannah

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:43:11 -0400
> From: Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
> Cc: 
> 
> Since roughly the start of the year, attempting to browse the
> relevant page on Savannah simply reports:
> 
> http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/emacs
> 
> "loggerhead disabled due to instability; if you're interesting in
> maintaining it, please contact us"

Correction: now it reports: "HTTP 404 - File not found".

> This issue is not as important as the sftp one was, but I think it is
> important for Savannah to provide this service for Bzr repositories,
> as it seems to do for every other version control system it supports.

Yes, I agree.  I posted a request to the Savannah list to fix this
up.  Perhaps Richard's word will give this a boost.

Re: bzr on Savannah

[Glenn Morris]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/emacs
>> 
>> "loggerhead disabled due to instability; if you're interesting in
>> maintaining it, please contact us"
>
> Correction: now it reports: "HTTP 404 - File not found".

I still get the first form (not that it matters much either way).

Re: bzr on Savannah

[Richard Stallman]

    One service that
    Savannah still does not provide is the ability to browse bzr
    repositories via the web. The service that provides this is called
    "Loggerhead", analogous to "ViewVC" for CVS repositories.

We need someone to volunteer to help Savannah and do this.
Would someone like to step forward?

     Since roughly the start of the year, attempting to browse the
    relevant page on Savannah simply reports:

    http://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/lh/emacs

    "loggerhead disabled due to instability;

What happened before then?  Did it work?
Or did it fail some other way?

-- 
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org, www.gnu.org

Re: bzr on Savannah

[Glenn Morris]

Richard Stallman wrote:

> We need someone to volunteer to help Savannah and do this.
> Would someone like to step forward?

Not me.

>     "loggerhead disabled due to instability;
>
> What happened before then?  Did it work?
> Or did it fail some other way?

I think maybe it did work at some point, but it was almost a year ago
so I can't remember.