From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pete Harlan Subject: Re: git performance Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:10:09 -0700 Message-ID: <490255D1.8060804@pcharlan.com> References: <000801c93483$2fdad340$8f9079c0$@com> <20081022203624.GA4585@coredump.intra.peff.net> <000901c93490$e0c40ed0$a24c2c70$@com> <49017F8F.3000908@pcharlan.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Edward Ned Harvey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 25 01:11:47 2008 connect(): Connection refused 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 1KtVoj-0007qW-OO for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:11:42 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757504AbYJXXKQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:10:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753407AbYJXXKP (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:10:15 -0400 Received: from lax-green-bigip-5.dreamhost.com ([208.113.200.5]:51821 "EHLO swarthymail-a6.g.dreamhost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757642AbYJXXKM (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:10:12 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.2] (031.132-78-65.ftth.swbr.surewest.net [65.78.132.31]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by swarthymail-a6.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39BAE1063D7; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:10:10 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Mozilla-Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080724) In-Reply-To: <49017F8F.3000908@pcharlan.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Pete Harlan wrote: > Edward Ned Harvey wrote: >>> Yes, it does stat all the files. How many files are you talking about, >>> and what platform? From a warm cache on Linux, the 23,000 files kernel >>> repo takes about a tenth of a second to stat all files for me (and this >> I'm talking about 40-50,000 files, on multi-user production linux, >> which means the cache is never warm, except when I'm benchmarking. >> Specifically RHEL 4 with the files on NFS mount. Cold cache "svn >> st" takes ~10 mins. Warm cache 20-30 sec. Surprisingly to me, > > I did some tests with a repo with ~32k files, and git was slightly > slower than svn with a cold cache (10.2s vs 8.4s), and around twice as > fast with a warm cache (.5s vs 1s). > > Git 1.6.0.2, svn 1.4.6. Cache made cold with > "echo 1 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches". Timings best of 5 runs. After redoing this test with "echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" (which also discards metadata, as pointed out by Linus), the cold-cache timings are: svn 12.65 seconds git 10.3 seconds So no Earth-shattering difference, but now git is somewhat quicker than Subversion at everything I tested. --Pete