From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:01:27 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050426040127.GK21897@waste.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504251859550.18901@ppc970.osdl.org>
On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:08:28PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Matt Mackall wrote:
> >
> > Here are the results of checking in the first 12 releases of Linux 2.6
> > into empty repositories for Mercurial v0.3 (hg) and git-pasky-0.7.
> > This is on my 512M Pentium M laptop. Times are in seconds.
> >
> > user system real du -sh
> > ver files hg git hg git hg git hg git
> >
> > 2.6.0 15007 19.949 35.526 3.171 2.264 25.138 87.994 145M 89M
> > 2.6.1 998 5.906 4.018 0.573 0.464 10.267 5.937 146M 99M
> > 2.6.2 2370 9.696 13.051 0.752 0.652 12.970 15.167 150M 117M
> > 2.6.3 1906 10.528 11.509 0.816 0.639 18.406 14.318 152M 135M
> > 2.6.4 3185 11.140 7.380 0.997 0.731 15.265 12.412 156M 158M
> > 2.6.5 2261 10.961 6.939 0.843 0.640 20.564 8.522 158M 177M
> > 2.6.6 2642 11.803 10.043 0.870 0.678 22.360 11.515 162M 197M
> > 2.6.7 3772 18.411 15.243 1.189 0.915 32.397 21.498 165M 227M
> > 2.6.8 4604 20.922 16.054 1.406 1.041 39.622 25.056 172M 262M
> > 2.6.9 4712 19.306 12.145 1.421 1.102 35.663 24.958 179M 297M
> > 2.6.10 5384 23.022 18.154 1.393 1.182 40.947 32.085 186M 338M
> > 2.6.11 5662 27.211 19.138 1.791 1.253 42.605 31.902 193M 379M
>
> That time in checking things in is worrisome.
>
> "git" is basically linear in the size of the patch, which is what I want,
> since most patches I work with are a couple of files at most. The patches
> you are checking in are huge - I never actually work with a change that is
> as big as a whole release. I work with changes that are five files or
> something.
Git (and hg) commit time should be basically linear in the number of
files touched, not the size of the patch.
> "hg" seems to basically slow down the more patches you have applied. It's
> hard to tell from the limited test set, but look at "user" time. It seems
> to increase from 6 seconds to 27 seconds.
And the number of files checked in grows from ~1000 to ~6000. Note
that git is growing from 4 to 19 seconds as well. Interestingly:
19.138/4.018 = 4.76 (git time ratio)
27.211/5.906 = 4.61 (hg time ratio)
So the scaling here is pretty similar.
> To make an interesting benchmark, try applying the first 200 patches in
> the current git kernel archive. Can you do them three per second? THAT is
> the thing you should optimize for, not checking in huge changes.
I'm not versant enough with git enough to know how but I'll give it a
shot. Do you have the patches in an mbox, perchance? This is Andrew's
x/198 patch bomb? It might be simpler for me to just apply everything
in -mm to git and hg and compare times. Modulo python startup time, it
should be pretty similar.
Oh, and can you send me the script you used for your test with git?
> If you're checking in a change to 1000+ files, you're doing something
> wrong.
That's primarily to demonstrate the scalability and show the
divergence in repository sizes.
However, it will not be uncommon for developers to pull/merge changes that
large and the numbers here will be about the same for hg.
> > Full-tree working dir diff (2.6.0 base with 2.6.1 in working dir):
> > hg: real 4.920s user 4.629s sys 0.260s
> > git: real 3.531s user 1.869s sys 0.862s
> > (this needed an update-cache --refresh on top of git commit, which
> > took another: real 2m52.764s user 2.833s sys 1.008s)
>
> You're doing something wrong with git here. Why would you need to update
> your cache?
Quite possibly. Without it, I was getting a dump of a bunch of SHAs.
I'm pretty git-ignorant, I've been focusing on something else for the
past couple weeks.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-26 3:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 119+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-26 0:41 Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks Matt Mackall
2005-04-26 1:49 ` Daniel Phillips
2005-04-26 2:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 2:30 ` Mike Taht
2005-04-26 3:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 4:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 11:13 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 15:09 ` Magnus Damm
2005-04-26 15:38 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 16:23 ` Magnus Damm
2005-04-26 18:18 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 20:56 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-26 21:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 22:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-26 22:56 ` Andrew Morton
2005-04-26 23:43 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 15:01 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 15:13 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 18:54 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 19:01 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 19:57 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-04-27 20:06 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 20:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 20:39 ` Thomas Glanzmann
2005-04-27 20:47 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 20:55 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 21:04 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-27 21:06 ` Florian Weimer
2005-04-27 21:32 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-04-27 19:55 ` Theodore Ts'o
2005-04-27 6:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2005-04-27 21:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-27 21:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 16:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 17:39 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 19:52 ` Chris Mason
2005-04-26 18:15 ` H. Peter Anvin
2005-04-26 20:30 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-26 16:11 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-26 4:01 ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2005-04-26 4:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-26 4:09 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-04-26 4:22 ` Andreas Gal
2005-04-26 4:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 6:01 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 6:40 ` Sean
2005-04-29 7:40 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 8:40 ` Sean
2005-04-29 14:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 15:18 ` Morten Welinder
2005-04-29 16:52 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-02 16:10 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-02 19:02 ` Sean
2005-05-02 22:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 22:30 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-02 22:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 0:00 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 2:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 3:29 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 4:18 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 4:24 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-03 4:27 ` Matt Mackall
2005-05-03 8:45 ` Chris Wedgwood
2005-04-29 15:44 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 15:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 17:34 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 17:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 18:08 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 18:33 ` Sean
2005-04-29 18:54 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 19:13 ` Sean
2005-04-29 19:22 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 19:28 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 19:47 ` Noel Maddy
2005-04-29 19:54 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 20:13 ` Andrew Timberlake-Newell
2005-04-29 20:26 ` Tom Lord
2005-04-29 20:57 ` Andrew Timberlake-Newell
2005-04-29 20:16 ` Morgan Schweers
2005-04-29 20:21 ` Noel Maddy
2005-04-29 20:42 ` git network protocol David Lang
2005-04-29 21:15 ` Daniel Barkalow
2005-04-29 20:44 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Tom Lord
2005-04-29 21:57 ` Denys Duchier
2005-04-29 20:29 ` Signed commit vulnerabilities? (was: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark) Kevin Smith
2005-04-29 21:45 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Horst von Brand
2005-05-02 21:06 ` Tom Lord
2005-05-03 0:24 ` Kevin Smith
2005-05-02 16:15 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-29 16:37 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 19:12 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 19:50 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 20:23 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 20:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-04-29 21:20 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-29 16:46 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-04-29 20:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-29 22:30 ` Olivier Galibert
2005-04-29 22:47 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-29 20:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-29 20:39 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-30 2:52 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-30 15:20 ` Matt Mackall
2005-04-30 16:37 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2005-05-02 15:49 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-02 16:14 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2005-05-03 17:40 ` Bill Davidsen
2005-05-04 2:10 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark (/usr/bin/env again) David A. Wheeler
2005-05-02 16:17 ` Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Andrea Arcangeli
2005-05-02 16:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 17:18 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-05-02 17:32 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 18:17 ` Edgar Toernig
2005-05-02 20:54 ` Sam Ravnborg
2005-05-02 17:20 ` Ryan Anderson
2005-05-02 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2005-05-02 21:17 ` Kyle Moffett
2005-05-03 17:43 ` Bill Davidsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20050426040127.GK21897@waste.org \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).