From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: git and larger trees, not so fast? Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20070809163026.GD568@mbox.bz> <20070811190201.GB4710@ferdyx.org> <20070811205137.GC4710@ferdyx.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: moe , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Fernando J. Pereda" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Aug 12 00:28:25 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 1IJzRV-0001DF-Lp for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:28:22 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760013AbXHKW2A (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:28:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759579AbXHKW2A (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:28:00 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:55435 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759538AbXHKW2A (ORCPT ); Sat, 11 Aug 2007 18:28:00 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [207.189.120.55]) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l7BMRQYi022227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:27:27 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l7BMRKKU027809; Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:27:20 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070811205137.GC4710@ferdyx.org> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.723 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.24__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.185 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: > > > > What does "usable" mean? Is it still slow ("barely usable") or is it > > actually fast enough to be truly _nice_ to use? > > Very nice to use considering my hardware is rather old. git status used > to take >1m and it now takes ~3s and git commit takes ~7s while it used > to take >1m too. So it makes things nice to use and I guess things are > MUCH better on faster hardware. Oh, ok. Having a 7s commit sounds fine - certainly not instantaneous, but it doesn't sound too painful. Certainly not compared to what people live with normally in some other environments, at least. Thanks go to moe for just giving a trivial script to reproduce the performance anomaly. It wasn't that hard to fix once there was a trivial and unambiguous test case. Linus