bzr-usertest - a benchmarking toolkit for Bazaar and other?command?line (VCS) tools
Teemu Likonen
teemu.likonen at iki.fi
Sat Mar 29 16:50:27 GMT 2008
Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> "git gc" may well reduce the space required. But it's only a single
> commit with no history so I don't run gc for git (or any of the other
> tools for that matter).
Initial commit in git repository does not seem to produce a packed
repository so all the objects are separate files. The repository will be
packed (i.e. git gc'ed) automatically at some later point (quite soon
I believe since the repository state easily exceeds the maximun number
of loose objects needed before autopacking). Bzr in turn seems to
produce a single .pack repository after initial commit.
So at least to me it seems that when comparing the sizes of git and bzr
repositories one needs to ensure both repositories are fully packed.
Both git and bzr do this automatically from time to time but at any
arbitrary moment they may not be comparable unless they are bzr-packed
and git-gc'ed. (Or one needs to do some kind of long-term test suite
over time and calculate averages.)
I did testing from this mentioned point of view: I dropped
emacs-22.2.tar.gz into git and bzr repositories (add+commit), ensured
that the repos are fully packed and then checked with "du -sh" how much
the .git and .bzr directories weight. With bzr I ensured that there are
no .bzr/repository/obsolete_packs. I got this:
.git 39 MB
.bzr 41 MB
With Linux 2.6.24.4 tarball:
.git 68 MB
.bzr 78 MB
I don't have a bzr repository of Linux kernel with full history but
I have git and bzr repos of GNU Emacs. Repos aren't exactly the same as
the git repo has over 2000 commits more. I don't know if there are some
other things that may cause them to be uncomparable. Anyway, this is
what I got:
.git 166 MB
.bzr 293 MB
(I deleted .bzr/repository/obsolete_packs before "du -sh".)
More information about the bazaar
mailing list