From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 14:23:29 -0400 Message-ID: <428793A1.5070004@pobox.com> References: <200505151122.j4FBMJa01073@adam.yggdrasil.com> <20050515173923.GK5914@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Adam J. Richter" , pasky@ucw.cz, git@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mercurial@selenic.com, torvalds@osdl.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun May 15 20:24:15 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DXNmP-00032l-RX for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 15 May 2005 20:23:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261194AbVEOSX4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2005 14:23:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261193AbVEOSX4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2005 14:23:56 -0400 Received: from mail.dvmed.net ([216.237.124.58]:18583 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261189AbVEOSXw (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 May 2005 14:23:52 -0400 Received: from cpe-065-184-065-144.nc.res.rr.com ([65.184.65.144] helo=[10.10.10.88]) by mail.dvmed.net with esmtpsa (Exim 4.51 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1DXNm4-0004Pj-AY; Sun, 15 May 2005 18:23:36 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050328 Fedora/1.7.6-1.2.5 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Matt Mackall In-Reply-To: <20050515173923.GK5914@waste.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Matt Mackall wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:22:19AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: > >>On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:54:05 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: >> >>>Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:57:35PM CEST, I got a letter >>>where Matt Mackall told me that... >>> >>>>Does this need an HTTP request (and round trip) per object? It appears >>>>to. That's 2200 requests/round trips for my 800 patch benchmark. >> >>>Yes it does. On the other side, it needs no server-side CGI. But I guess >>>it should be pretty easy to write some kind of server-side CGI streamer, >>>and it would then easily take just a single HTTP request (telling the >>>server the commit ID and receiving back all the objects). >> >> I don't understand what was wrong with Jeff Garzik's previous >>suggestion of using http/1.1 pipelining to coalesce the round trips. > > > You can't do pipelining if you can't look ahead far enough to fill the pipe. Even if you cannot fill a pipeline, HTTP/1.1 is sufficiently useful simply by removing the per-request connection overhead. Jeff