From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:40:43 -0700 Message-ID: <20050429074043.GT21897@waste.org> References: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> <20050429060157.GS21897@waste.org> <3817.10.10.10.24.1114756831.squirrel@linux1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 29 09:36:24 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DRQ2N-0001uJ-SY for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:35:48 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262476AbVD2HlH (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:41:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262473AbVD2HlH (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:41:07 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([216.27.176.166]:12170 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262469AbVD2Hkw (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 03:40:52 -0400 Received: from waste.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waste.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j3T7eh4i001095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:40:43 -0500 Received: (from oxymoron@localhost) by waste.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j3T7ehoK001092; Fri, 29 Apr 2005 02:40:43 -0500 To: Sean Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3817.10.10.10.24.1114756831.squirrel@linux1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:40:31AM -0400, Sean wrote: > > - no way to do efficient delta storage > > This has been discussed. It is a recognized and accepted design > trade-off. Disk is cheap. This trade-off FAILS, as my benchmarks against Mercurial have shown. It trades 10x disk space for maybe 10% performance relative to my approach. Meanwhile, it makes a bunch of other things hard, namely the ones I've listed. Yes, you can hack around them, but the back end will still be bloated. > Your concearns are about performance rather than real limitations and it's > just too damn early in the development process for that. Frankly it's > amazing how good git is considering its age; it's already _way_ faster and > easier to use than bk ever was for my use. Mercurial is even younger (Linus had a few days' head start, not to mention a bunch of help), and it is already as fast as git, relatively easy to use, much simpler, and much more space and bandwidth efficient. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.