Performance improvements for bzr-2.4 on large trees

[Martitza Mendez]

My bad...I hoped from reading the thread that some improvement would carry
over into bzr commit.   Hey at least this shows that your changes did no
harm to the commands in my example!
On May 19, 2011 3:24 PM, "John Arbash Meinel" <john at arbash-meinel.com>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> ...
>> Ok, I have taken a quick look and saw some improvements but not as much
>> as I hoped. Let's not jump to any conclusions, because my experience is
>> based on a repo with a fair amount of binary bloat (versioned DLLs):
>
> So the #1 thing is that the main improvements are when the tree you are
> dealing with is really big. If you go back to my numbers, I had 2
> tables. The 70k entry table showed massive improvements, the 7k entry
> table showed minor ones.
>
> And times for something <1k entries is mostly dominated by python+bzrlib
> startup time.
>
> #2, I didn't specifically improve stat/add/commit times. I'm not sure
> about add, but commit already was trying to use the update-by-delta code
> (that was the code that I cleaned up to support any delta, rather than
> only supporting commit deltas).
> So the places you'll see the most benefit are the ones I mentioned.
> merge/pull/update/uncommit.
> ...
>> Platform is Windows XP, 32 bits. As close to zero load as I can get.
>> Just a "DOS" shell and python.
>> All tests were performed with --no-plugins and I verified that I was
>> running the intended revisions by checking 'bzr version'
>> The machine is an old dual Opteron running at 2GHz with 2GB RAM. Python
>> is 2.6.5 and I get the usual warning about some compiled extensions not
>> being loaded but I don't think that matters much for John's changes.
>
>> Since I am not seeing as much improvement as John, I speculate that I
>> might be limited by either memory or filesystem throughput. I will try
>> a machine manufactured in this decade soon.
>
> There are a few possibilities, but primarily you're not running commands
> that I improved.
>
> John
> =:->
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk3VmIUACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMKAQCg0970PqgIYCra82+YNrk1S2dR
> ansAnRM8pG4WrA7WkPAUjg6n/7FY3eZN
> =vRFh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20110519/c2f2e5e2/attachment-0001.html>