From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matt Mackall Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 13:11:16 -0700 Message-ID: <20050512201116.GC5914@waste.org> References: <20050512094406.GZ5914@waste.org> <20050512182340.GA324@pasky.ji.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org, mercurial@selenic.com, Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu May 12 22:04:57 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DWJuM-0003Qx-I8 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 12 May 2005 22:03:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262077AbVELUL1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2005 16:11:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262076AbVELUL1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2005 16:11:27 -0400 Received: from waste.org ([216.27.176.166]:2965 "EHLO waste.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262074AbVELULV (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 May 2005 16:11:21 -0400 Received: from waste.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by waste.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j4CKBG0f030752 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 May 2005 15:11:16 -0500 Received: (from oxymoron@localhost) by waste.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j4CKBG6B030749; Thu, 12 May 2005 15:11:16 -0500 To: Petr Baudis Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050512182340.GA324@pasky.ji.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:23:41PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter > where Matt Mackall told me that... > > Mercurial is more than 10 times as bandwidth efficient and > > considerably more I/O efficient. On the server side, rsync uses about > > twice as much CPU time as the Mercurial server and has about 10 times > > the I/O and pagecache footprint as well. > > > > Mercurial is also much smarter than rsync at determining what > > outstanding changesets exist. Here's an empty pull as a demonstration: > > > > $ time hg merge hg://selenic.com/linux-hg/ > > retrieving changegroup > > > > real 0m0.363s > > user 0m0.083s > > sys 0m0.007s > > > > That's a single http request and a one line response. > > So, what about comparing it with something comparable, say git pull over > HTTP? :-) ..because I get a headache every time I try to figure out how to use git? :-P Seriously, have a pointer to how this works? -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.