Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 May 2005 22:14:06 +0200 | From | Petr Baudis <> | Subject | Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull |
| |
Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:11:16PM CEST, I got a letter where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that... > 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?
Either you use cogito and just pass cg-clone an HTTP URL (to the git repository as in the case of rsync - http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/cogito/cogito.git should work), or you invoke git-http-pull directly (passing it desired commit ID of the remote HEAD you want to fetch, and the URL; see Documentation/git-http-pull.txt).
-- Petr "Pasky" Baudis Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/ C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor - 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/
| |