Some timings using bzr

[Andrew Cowie]

I'll leave the actual thrust of your investigations, NFS performance,
to others, but to

On Fri, 2008-07-11 at 08:21 +0200, David Ingamells wrote:

>      1. file:// is better than bzr:// when using a local destination.
>         Surprisingly bzr:// across the network was quicker than bzr://
>         used on the same machine.

I can't really say as how this is surprising; bzr:// is a network
transport and is designed for the resource profile (latency, etc)
inherent in doing operations over physical networks. Not much point in
putting a TCP/IP stack & a network protocol in the way of doing local
read and write.

If you characterize your second sentence as: "unsurprisingly, file://
URLs are more appropriate for local disk operations than bzr://" it
makes perfect sense.

One of the things that makes Bazaar (and 3rd generation DVCS in general)
interesting is that it is incredibly difficult to do apples-to-apples
comparisons _because_ so many things are different depending on what
you're doing. This really shows up in http:// vs bzr:// comparisons; for
some things one is (unintuitively) faster than the other (say, pulling
lots of data), but the next minute you do something else (say, pushing
varied revisions) and the performance characteristics are *totally*
different. So I respect the people working on this project; they appear
to have a fair bit of discipline about measuring things that are
actually relevant.

AfC
Sydney


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080711/65b6ad3b/attachment.pgp