Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 13:11:16 -0700 | From | Matt Mackall <> | Subject | Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull |
| |
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:23:41PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter > where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that... > > Mercurial is more than 10 times as bandwidth efficient and > > considerably more I/O efficient. On the server side, rsync uses about > > twice as much CPU time as the Mercurial server and has about 10 times > > the I/O and pagecache footprint as well. > > > > Mercurial is also much smarter than rsync at determining what > > outstanding changesets exist. Here's an empty pull as a demonstration: > > > > $ time hg merge hg://selenic.com/linux-hg/ > > retrieving changegroup > > > > real 0m0.363s > > user 0m0.083s > > sys 0m0.007s > > > > That's a single http request and a one line response. > > So, what about comparing it with something comparable, say git pull over > HTTP? :-)
..because I get a headache every time I try to figure out how to use git? :-P
Seriously, have a pointer to how this works?
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |