From: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:52:23 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
Cc: Mike Taht <mike.taht@timesys.com>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, git@vger.kernel.org
References: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504260939440.18901@ppc970.osdl.org> <200504261339.34680.mason@suse.com>
In-Reply-To: <200504261339.34680.mason@suse.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200504261552.24100.mason@suse.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1100
Lines: 29

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 13:39, Chris Mason wrote:

> As an example, here's the time to apply 300 patches on ext3.  This was with
> my packed patches applied, but vanilla git should show similar percentage
> differences.
>
> data=writeback  32s
> data=ordered    44s
>
> With a long enough test, data=ordered should fall into the noise, but 10-40
> second runs really show it.

I get much closer numbers if the patches directory is already in 
cache...data=ordered means more contention for the disk when trying to read 
the patches.  

If the patches are hot in the cache data=writeback and data=ordered both take 
about 30s.  You still see some writes in data=writeback, but these are mostly 
async log commits.  

The same holds true for vanilla git as well, although it needs 1m7s to apply 
from a hot cache (sorry, couldn't resist the plug ;)

-chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/