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 <[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? :-)
..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 [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]
