From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sean Subject: Re: git and larger trees, not so fast? Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:52:18 -0400 Message-ID: <20070809165218.9b76ebf7.seanlkml@sympatico.ca> References: <20070809163026.GD568@mbox.bz> <7vmyx0y3vp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <7v7io4xwvp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linus Torvalds , moe , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Aug 09 22:52:48 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IJEzu-0005kF-4q for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:52:46 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755605AbXHIUwo (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:52:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753338AbXHIUwo (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:52:44 -0400 Received: from s1.bay2.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.99]:36696 "EHLO bay0-omc1-s27.bay0.hotmail.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754483AbXHIUwn (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 16:52:43 -0400 Received: from bayc1-pasmtp08.bayc1.hotmail.com ([65.54.191.168]) by bay0-omc1-s27.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:52:42 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [64.231.205.174] X-Originating-Email: [seanlkml@sympatico.ca] Received: from linux1.attic.local ([64.231.205.174]) by bayc1-pasmtp08.bayc1.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Thu, 9 Aug 2007 13:54:42 -0700 Received: from guru.attic.local ([10.10.10.28]) by linux1 with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IJEzo-0005s7-Q5; Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:52:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <7v7io4xwvp.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.2 (GTK+ 2.10.13; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Aug 2007 20:54:42.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[82A336B0:01C7DAC7] Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:42:50 -0700 Junio C Hamano wrote: > I do not know if this "fixes" the performance problem or not (I > do not have that much time during the day), so I would not call > this a "fix" yet, but at least the _change_ looks trivially > correct, and passes all the existing tests. > > Interested parties may want to try it and see if it shifts the > bottleneck. Junio, This makes things _much_ better, however the final commit in the test script still shows a lot of user time: ## time git init real 0m0.005s user 0m0.001s sys 0m0.004s ## time git add . real 0m3.501s user 0m1.268s sys 0m2.159s ## time git commit -q -m 'buurrrrn' -a real 0m2.299s user 0m1.065s sys 0m1.317s ## time git status real 0m1.107s user 0m0.548s sys 0m0.557s ## time git status real 0m1.122s user 0m0.545s sys 0m0.557s ## time git status real 0m1.142s user 0m0.545s sys 0m0.576s ## time git commit -q -m 'hurry' 50/500 real 0m16.944s user 0m15.466s sys 0m1.133s Cheers, Sean