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 21:08:50 +0100 Message-ID: <87mxlpgnfx.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <83fwritmmx.fsf@gnu.org> <87wrkuhrtb.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87oc65id40.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83ei71tdvx.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298319013 16749 80.91.229.12 (21 Feb 2011 20:10:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:10:13 +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 21:10:09 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 1Prc59-00066Q-2u for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:10:09 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50275 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Prc56-0001yx-Kz for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:10:04 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=33369 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Prc4G-0001x1-HB for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:09:14 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Prc4A-0007qT-SR for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:09:07 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:34066) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Prc4A-0007ph-L8 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 15:09:06 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Prc48-0005b0-3i for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:09:04 +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 21:09:04 +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 21:09:04 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 41 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:q77+9cHL9YCzQimwm3xJssD1/+Q= 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:79290 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: [snip] >> Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost >> unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook. > > That's not true, at least not wrt CPU. Your own data refutes this: > > real 17m41.424s > user 7m56.250s > sys 0m8.240s First: that's on a fast desktop machine. My experience says that the netbook (currently unavailable) on the same network will take 6 times more CPU time. I recall having to copy the bzr Emacs repository from the desktop machine to the netbook (instead of cloning it with bzr) after waiting for more than an hour and losing patience. That was on the local network. Second: bzr is downloading approx. 450 MB over a 1 MB/s ADSL line. On the best case it would take 7.5 minutes (it takes 9.8). For this specific case of cloning the bzr emacs repo on Launchpad, saying that it is mostly network-bound is accurate, but not by much. As soon as you start using a slightly faster network or a slower machine the CPU time dominates. > Here are a few of my data points, with different machines and > different network bandwidths: [snip] > In all but one case, the CPU time is 1/3 to 1/7 of the elapsed time. > That's not how a CPU-bound app looks like. Without precise specs of the machines and networks for each timing, it is hard to interpret those results. >> Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful >> ones? > > No, they are on faster networks.