Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>
To: robbat2@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata/md5-cache
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:57:18
Message-Id: 20120604235643.GD3692@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: metadata/md5-cache by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:25:43AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2 > On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
3 > > Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as excerpted:
4 > >
5 > > >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a significant
6 > > >> cost to an rsync.
7 > > > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more efficient
8 > > > than rsync. Or maybe it would be already?
9 > > Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient client-side
10 > > for some time. Server-side I don't know about, but I've presumed that's
11 > > the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't included switching the default
12 > > for user-syncs to git. I expect user/client side, git would be more
13 > > efficient already, but as I said, that's handwavey guesses.
14 > No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient.
15 >
16 > They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons:
17 > 1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git.
18
19 Sidenote, and this is mildly insane, I'd thought about submodules for
20 this; basically every rsync window, we dump the metadata into vcs,
21 which devs can pull down and make use of.
22
23 I've also not experimented w/ this workflow, so it could be batshit
24 insane. Anyone game to experiment?
25
26 ~harring