commit performance regression in 0.11

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Aaron Bentley wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> 
>>> Well all of these start exposing "implementation details", right?
> 
> Sure.
> 
>>> Also, what do people think about trying to get my no-hash-prefix version
>>> of the repository into 0.12? I haven't been pushing for it, because we
>>> haven't tested it a whole lot. But it really is a lot faster for a new
>>> kernel-sized add + commit (like 1/2 the time). Since your Knit2 format
>>> is experimental, I think we could just put it in the same format, and
>>> then we don't have the overhead of 2 format changes.
> 
> I think it would be best to bump to Knit3, and just drop support for the
> current Knit2.  There's always the chance of confusion if we retain the
> same format string.
> 
>>> Another possibility would be to make the hash-prefix configurable with
>>> another control file. So people could decide which one they wanted to
>>> use, in case a given filesystem performed poorly.
> 
> I'd tend to go YAGNI on that.
> 
> Aaron

Well, we need to do a performance test on Windows, to at least see how
NTFS is going to scale to some number of files. I would say at least 2K
(I have a win32 project with 1.6K files), but probably we would want to
test a kernel-sized tree on it.

I can try to brush off the cobwebs and do some testing, though I would
rather get lazy_import stuff done first.

John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFGDyGJdeBCYSNAAMRAk9FAJ9AOn7lJUJ55EkK2e9egUxkwlxh1wCfXrvY
kG2EtTxTJOQMSYYElRCe8kw=
=8prK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----