[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Darkstar Development Project
Larry McVoy <> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:55:01PM +0200, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> > Err, "faster"? The following is the moral equiv of 4 kernel updates
>> > which had nothing to do using BitKeeper instead of CVS. The local copy
>> > was in San Francisco and the remote copy is Cort's machine in New Mexico
>> > over a 384Kbits/sec link. All 4 updates in 5 seconds. Anyone have a
>> > CVS tree they can try to get comparable numbers?
>> Try:

> Thanks, that was helpful. Comparison numbers for a null update of the 2.3
> kernel, which means you update and then update again, timing the second update
> to get some idea of the system's best case throughput, are:

> CVS: 139.5 seconds
> BK: 1.6 seconds

> The BK tree is the 2.3 kernel tree maintained by FSMlabs.

larry - this one is a bit unfair i think: the tree
runs right now on a 200mhz pentium and is quite a bit worse
connected to you than the bk tree - also it's a "synthetic"
tree which contains for instance 100+ tags in the 2.3
tree which might make it a bit slow too ...

but all that does not mean that bk is bad - haven't had a look at
it so far - i just wanted to say: better avoid such comparisions
- i think the mozilla idea (from some mails later) side by side
will give a much better comparision


technical director innominate AG
clustering & security networking people
tel: +49.30.308806-13 fax: -77
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:2.206 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site