Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 00:40:43 -0700
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark
Message-ID: <20050429074043.GT21897@waste.org>
References: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504251859550.18901@ppc970.osdl.org> <20050429060157.GS21897@waste.org> <3817.10.10.10.24.1114756831.squirrel@linux1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3817.10.10.10.24.1114756831.squirrel@linux1>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1276
Lines: 29

On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:40:31AM -0400, Sean wrote:
> > - no way to do efficient delta storage
> 
> This has been discussed.  It is a recognized and accepted design
> trade-off.  Disk is cheap.

This trade-off FAILS, as my benchmarks against Mercurial have shown.
It trades 10x disk space for maybe 10% performance relative to my
approach. Meanwhile, it makes a bunch of other things hard, namely the
ones I've listed. Yes, you can hack around them, but the back end will
still be bloated.

> Your concearns are about performance rather than real limitations and it's
> just too damn early in the development process for that.  Frankly it's
> amazing how good git is considering its age; it's already _way_ faster and
> easier to use than bk ever was for my use.

Mercurial is even younger (Linus had a few days' head start, not to
mention a bunch of help), and it is already as fast as git, relatively
easy to use, much simpler, and much more space and bandwidth
efficient.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/