Avery Pennarun venit, vidit, dixit 25.06.2008 20:02:
On 6/25/08, Michael J Gruber <michaeljgruber+gmane@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
4) My idea is to eventually --assume-unchanged my whole repository,
then write a cheesy daemon that uses the Win32 dnotify-equivalent to
watch for files that get updated and then selectively
--no-assume-unchanged files that it gets notified about. That would
avoid the need to ever synchronously scan the whole repo for changes,
thus making my git-Win32 experience much faster and more enjoyable.
(This daemon ought to be possible to run on Linux as well, for similar
improvements on gigantic repositories. Also note that TortoiseSVN for
Windows does something similar to track file status updates, so this
isn't *just* me being crazy.)
Looks like users on slow NFS would profit, too. Hate to say it, but hg
feels faster on (slow) NFS than git. Yet I use git, for other reasons ;)
Hmm, can you do dnotify over NFS?
I'd like to know how hg goes any faster. As far as I can see, git is
going as fast as can be without some kind of daemon or other magic.
(Except for my point #3, which seems relatively minor.)
I haven't done any measurements, maybe I should; getting consistent
results would require setting up an isolated NFS environment, though.
The thing is that hg is very careful about serializing and minimizing
disk I/O, whereas git is very clever about delegating stuff to the
kernel and processing data efficiently. In my work environment I have to
keep my repos on NFS. For heavy history rewriting I resort to /tmp or
/dev/shm temporarily. But git status is kinda slow on NFS. I don't know
about [di]?notify over NFS.
Michael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
