On Thu, Nov 13, 2008, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But it's still hacky as hell. Who has NFS? Can you do the same thing over > NFS and test it? I'm not going to set up NFS to test this, and as I > suspected, on a local disk, the cold-cache case makes no difference > what-so-ever, because whatever seek optimizations can be done are still > totally irrelevant. I'm trying to test this and so far I'm not seeing any effect. The timings are all over the map, but the average time is about the same as before. If I run 'git status' over and over without pausing in between, it runs very fast, so I guess the client is caching some things for a short time. Here are the timings I got by running git 1.6.0.4 and 1.6.0.4 plus this patch, alternating between them and sleeping for 60 seconds after each run: Git 1.6.0.4: 4.83 4.47 4.54 9.04 5.28 4.33 6.40 13.71 4.51 5.90 Git 1.6.0.4 plus patch: 7.82 10.94 4.61 5.06 5.59 5.22 4.65 5.58 6.70 9.15 I'll play around with the code and see if I figure anything out. In case it matters, I'm using a 4 core machine with a fairly old kernel: $ uname -r 2.6.5-7.287.3.PTF.363939.1-smp BTW thanks a lot for working on it. I was expecting a response along the lines of "it's possible but would require extensive code changes so it's not likely to happen", and instead a patch was posted only a few hours later. Maybe I should ask for all those other upgrades I've had in mind... ;-) James -- 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
