Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > on another box, with 1.5.4, i have: > > dione:~/tip> time git fetch origin > > real 0m0.481s > user 0m0.136s > sys 0m0.060s > > dione:~/tip> time ./tip-fetch > b714d1a257cca93ba6422ca3276ac80a2cde2b59 > b714d1a257cca93ba6422ca3276ac80a2cde2b59 > > real 0m0.273s > user 0m0.012s > sys 0m0.020s > > that's a 2.66 GHz core2 quad, i.e. a pretty fast box too. As you can see > most time spent in the tip-fetch case was waiting for the network. So > there's about 200 msecs of extra CPU cost on the local side. Yea. My testing last night was suggesting about 1/2 of that 200 ms is on the client, and the other 200 ms is on the server side of the connection. That matches up somewhat with your test above, where git-fetch used about 100 ms more user time on the client side than your tip-fetch shell script. I have no clue where the bottleneck is, I didn't get that far before I realized you must have been running a shell script based git-fetch to be seeing the performance you were. Maybe 1.6.1 or .2 we can try to squeeze fetch to run faster. Its far too late for 1.6.0. > Sorry that i didnt notice that titan had 1.5.2 - i almost never notice > it when i switch between stable git versions. (you guys are doing a > really good job on compatibility) Yea, its easy to not realize your git isn't giving you the latest and greatest toys. ;-) -- Shawn. -- 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
