From: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@yahoo.it>
To: cel@citi.umich.edu
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@gmail.com>,
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git-merge-cache / StGIT - gitmergeonefile.py: merging one tree into another rather than two trees into merge base
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:46:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200509141946.35002.blaisorblade@yahoo.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <43257BB3.5020506@citi.umich.edu>
On Monday 12 September 2005 14:59, Chuck Lever wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 20:27 +0200, Blaisorblade wrote:
> >>Today I was pushing my patch stack (which was against Linux 2.6.13) on
> >> top of the latest snapshot I have (i.e. upstream will likely have some
> >> mega of patches). And it was *really* slow (say it pushed 8 patches in 5
> >> minutes).
> > That's indeed very slow. How may files are modified in each patch? Do
> > you run it over NFS? Also for profiling, it is useful to run a 'stg
> > status' just to warm up the cache a little bit.
> i've probably seen similar behavior with git-update-index, but i never
> bothered to measure it. blaisorblade, how are you profiling git?
I'm not, I just did the "testing" (actually I was simply using StGIT) I
noticed and reported this behaviour (I even had time to run top to watch what
was happening).
As said in the other answer, yes, I verified that it wasn't only for time
spent getting cache-hot, and I'm not running on NFS, nor running big things
in background.
--
Inform me of my mistakes, so I can keep imitating Homer Simpson's "Doh!".
Paolo Giarrusso, aka Blaisorblade (Skype ID "PaoloGiarrusso", ICQ 215621894)
http://www.user-mode-linux.org/~blaisorblade
___________________________________
Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB
http://mail.yahoo.it
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-14 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-10 18:27 git-merge-cache / StGIT - gitmergeonefile.py: merging one tree into another rather than two trees into merge base Blaisorblade
2005-09-11 8:24 ` Catalin Marinas
2005-09-12 12:59 ` Chuck Lever
2005-09-14 17:46 ` Blaisorblade [this message]
2005-09-14 18:16 ` Blaisorblade
2005-09-14 18:19 ` Blaisorblade
2005-09-15 10:06 ` Catalin Marinas
2005-09-16 18:45 ` Blaisorblade
2005-09-16 19:59 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-09-17 9:31 ` Catalin Marinas
2005-09-19 15:50 ` omitted test scripts? Chuck Lever
2005-09-19 16:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-09-19 17:01 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-09-19 18:54 ` Matthias Urlichs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200509141946.35002.blaisorblade@yahoo.it \
--to=blaisorblade@yahoo.it \
--cc=catalin.marinas@gmail.com \
--cc=cel@citi.umich.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).