Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:22:19AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:54:05 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
>>
>>>Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:57:35PM CEST, I got a letter
>>>where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that...
>>>
>>>>Does this need an HTTP request (and round trip) per object? It appears
>>>>to. That's 2200 requests/round trips for my 800 patch benchmark.
>>
>>>Yes it does. On the other side, it needs no server-side CGI. But I guess
>>>it should be pretty easy to write some kind of server-side CGI streamer,
>>>and it would then easily take just a single HTTP request (telling the
>>>server the commit ID and receiving back all the objects).
>>
>>	I don't understand what was wrong with Jeff Garzik's previous
>>suggestion of using http/1.1 pipelining to coalesce the round trips.
> 
> 
> You can't do pipelining if you can't look ahead far enough to fill the pipe.

Even if you cannot fill a pipeline, HTTP/1.1 is sufficiently useful 
simply by removing the per-request connection overhead.

	Jeff