| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Harley Peters <harley@×××××××××××××.net>: |
| 4 |
> Ok that's what I am doing. Was just wondering if there was something |
| 5 |
> simple I over looked. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
To give you an idea what we gain here, I compiled some numbers. GNU |
| 8 |
Emacs live ebuild (app-editors/emacs-cvs) will be the biggest consumer |
| 9 |
once they switch from CVS. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
First we will compare timings |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
$ time bzr checkout --lightweight |
| 14 |
real 7m37.044s |
| 15 |
user 1m2.789s |
| 16 |
sys 0m2.807s |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
$ time bzr checkout |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
real 40m47.371s |
| 21 |
user 3m57.881s |
| 22 |
sys 0m8.586s |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So the normal initial checkout will be more than five times slower than |
| 25 |
the lightweight one. If this were 1s to 6s it would be neglectable, |
| 26 |
but we are talking about half an hour difference just for an emerge. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Next ist the update function. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
$ time bzr update |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
real 0m11.457s |
| 33 |
user 0m0.544s |
| 34 |
sys 0m0.092s |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
$ time bzr update |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
real 0m2.710s |
| 39 |
user 0m0.237s |
| 40 |
sys 0m0.053s |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Clearly the normal checkout wins by factor five, but we are in the |
| 43 |
second range, while the space gain is enormous: |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
$ du -sch Emacs-lw/ Emacs |
| 46 |
106M Emacs-lw/ |
| 47 |
427M Emacs |
| 48 |
533M total |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
V-Li |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project |
| 54 |
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/> |
Archives