Date: Sun, 15 May 2005 04:52:50 -0700
From: "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>
Message-Id: <200505151152.j4FBqoW01239@adam.yggdrasil.com>
To: pasky@ucw.cz
Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       mercurial@selenic.com, mpm@selenic.com, torvalds@osdl.org
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1519
Lines: 37

On Sun, 15 May 2005 14:40:42 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
>Dear diary, on Sun, May 15, 2005 at 01:22:19PM CEST, I got a letter
>where "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com> told me that...
[...]
>> 	I don't understand what was wrong with Jeff Garzik's previous
>> suggestion of using http/1.1 pipelining to coalesce the round trips.
>> If you're worried about queuing too many http/1.1 requests, the client
>> could adopt a policy of not having more than a certain number of
>> requests outstanding or perhaps even making a new http connection
>> after a certain number of requests to avoid starving other clients
>> when the number of clients doing one of these transfers exceeds the
>> number of threads that the http server uses.

>The problem is that to fetch a revision tree, you have to

>	send request for commit A
>	receive commit A
>	look at commit A for list of its parents
>	send request for the parents
>	receive the parents
>	look inside for list of its parents
>	...

>(and same for the trees).

	Don't you usually have a list of many files for which you
want to retrieve this information?  I'd imagine that would usually
suffice to fill the pipeline.

                    __     ______________
Adam J. Richter        \ /
adam@yggdrasil.com      | g g d r a s i l
-
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/