From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Official Git mirror? Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:30 +0100 Message-ID: <87ei71gl6t.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <83fwritmmx.fsf@gnu.org> <878vx9rcq1.fsf@rapttech.com.au> <878vx9i75z.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83d3mltdna.fsf@gnu.org> <87zkppgoqy.fsf@wanadoo.es> <8362sdt9f0.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298321931 32721 80.91.229.12 (21 Feb 2011 20:58:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:58:51 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 21 21:58:46 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Prcq7-0005bk-LS for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:58:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55158 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Prcps-00083S-6x for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:58:24 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=38744 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PrcpG-0007vO-Q8 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:57:51 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrcpF-0001ej-Nk for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:38300) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PrcpF-0001eS-DZ for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:57:45 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PrcpD-0005Em-C3 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:43 +0100 Original-Received: from 103.red-79-150-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([79.150.239.103]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:43 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 103.red-79-150-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:57:43 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 67 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 103.red-79-150-239.dynamicip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:dR62I/oICCbrPeJNZH7HuAFXSYY= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:79292 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> But then the plan is failing, because the timings I posted show that >> "smart" wins over "nosmart" even when a weak server is servicing a >> mighty client over a fast network. > > Sometimes it indeed makes no significant difference, but sometimes it > wins big time. Observe: > > bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > real 45m4.820s > user 15m58.380s > sys 0m12.910s > > Transferred: 540480KiB (199.9K/s r:540403K w:77K) > > bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk > > > real 16m30.189s > user 15m22.090s > sys 0m14.560s > > Transferred: 780914KiB (789.2K/s r:780640K w:275K) > > In the thread I mentioned on the Bazaar list, someone else also > reported a huge speedup: > >> over a 3 Mbit/s connection: >> >> bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk >> 6949.356 Transferred: 469739kB (67.6kB/s r:469659kB w:80kB) >> >> nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk >> 2919.117 Transferred: 524353kB (179.7kB/s r:524162kB w:191kB) > > That's almost 2 hours slashed to 48 minutes, an almost 3-fold speedup. > >> > The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to win >> > for the initial checkout. >> >> You said on the other post that cloning time is network-bound. So being >> smart and sending less data would be better. > > Not if "being smart" wastes CPU cycles on the server side and causes > it to use the available bandwidth less efficiently. See the network > throughput figures above, reported by bzr on .bzr.log. Eli, I re-quote what you said: Oscar: >> >> It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy >> >> CPUs Eli: >> > No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no >> > win in being smart, because you need to send everything anyway. You are contradicting yourself, because your data above is more evidence supporting my hypotheses of nosmart being a tricky effective with CPU-starved servers. Besides, cloning from Savannah is almost twice as slow than from Launchpad for me. If it is because network distance considerations (pinging to it is 3 times slower than to Launchpad) or because the server is CPU and/or bandwidth starved, I don't know. Your timings comparing smart/nosmart seem to point to the CPU, though.