Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks

Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26T16:41:17Z

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> This agrees with my tests here, the time to apply patches is somewhat disk
> bound, even for the small 100 or 200 patch series. The io should be coming
> from data=ordered, since the commits are still every 5 seconds or so.

Yes, ext3 really does suck in many ways.

One of my (least) favourite suckage is a process that does "fsync" on a
single file (mail readers etc), which apparently causes ext3 to sync all
dirty data, because it can only sync the whole log. So if you have stuff
that writes out things that aren't critical, it negatively affects
something totally independent that _does_ care.

I remember some early stuff showing that reiserfs was _much_ better for
BK. I'd be willing to bet that's probably true for git too.

Linus