From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Shawn O. Pearce" Subject: Re: q: git-fetch a tad slow? Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:19:19 -0700 Message-ID: <20080731211919.GC24631@spearce.org> References: <20080728160138.GA12777@elte.hu> <20080729055014.GE11947@spearce.org> <20080729090802.GA11373@elte.hu> <20080730044855.GA7225@spearce.org> <20080730190657.GC26389@elte.hu> <20080731044531.GB1860@spearce.org> <20080731210307.GF25138@elte.hu> <20080731211141.GA1159@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 31 23:20:44 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KOfZO-0001A5-1L for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:20:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752693AbYGaVTV (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:19:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753987AbYGaVTV (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:19:21 -0400 Received: from george.spearce.org ([209.20.77.23]:48807 "EHLO george.spearce.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752693AbYGaVTU (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:19:20 -0400 Received: by george.spearce.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E72CE38419; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080731211141.GA1159@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Ingo Molnar wrote: > > on another box, with 1.5.4, i have: > > dione:~/tip> time git fetch origin > > real 0m0.481s > user 0m0.136s > sys 0m0.060s > > dione:~/tip> time ./tip-fetch > b714d1a257cca93ba6422ca3276ac80a2cde2b59 > b714d1a257cca93ba6422ca3276ac80a2cde2b59 > > real 0m0.273s > user 0m0.012s > sys 0m0.020s > > that's a 2.66 GHz core2 quad, i.e. a pretty fast box too. As you can see > most time spent in the tip-fetch case was waiting for the network. So > there's about 200 msecs of extra CPU cost on the local side. Yea. My testing last night was suggesting about 1/2 of that 200 ms is on the client, and the other 200 ms is on the server side of the connection. That matches up somewhat with your test above, where git-fetch used about 100 ms more user time on the client side than your tip-fetch shell script. I have no clue where the bottleneck is, I didn't get that far before I realized you must have been running a shell script based git-fetch to be seeing the performance you were. Maybe 1.6.1 or .2 we can try to squeeze fetch to run faster. Its far too late for 1.6.0. > Sorry that i didnt notice that titan had 1.5.2 - i almost never notice > it when i switch between stable git versions. (you guys are doing a > really good job on compatibility) Yea, its easy to not realize your git isn't giving you the latest and greatest toys. ;-) -- Shawn.