Default performance of ‘lp:foo’ URLs

[Andrew Cowie]

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 22:44 +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 17:36 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> > Robert Collins writes:
> > 
> >  > Its not implausible that bzr+http would be faster than bzr+ssh.
> > 
> > It doesn't seem likely that the difference would be enough that people
> > would really care, though.  Once you've got a smart server running,
> > the only time transport time should matter is on a clone, right?
> 
> Setting up ssh from here is ~ as long as an incremental push :)

Isn't the real question here pull (ie, initial checkout, or large
catchup?) times ie trying to choose between recommending people use
        
        1a. $ bzr pull http://...
        1b. $ bzr pull bzr+http://...
        
        2   $ bzr pull bzr://...
        
        3   $ bzr pull bzr+ssh://...

to get or s/pull/branch/ your code?

[ie, aren't bzr+ssh:// and sftp:// the only ways to push remotely, so
for pushing bzr+ssh is a given in most cases?]

Is `missing` a good way to test these things? In my present experience,
bzr missing bzr:// is 2.3s whereas bzr missing http:// is 3.7s, from
which I infer that recommending people use the Bazaar smart server
protocol over 4331is a good idea (if it's technically and policy
feasible for them to deploy, of course).

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/20091202/bf8ef954/attachment.pgp