Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter
where Matt Mackall <[email protected]> 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? :-)
--
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
