| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:17:56 +0900 Kalin KOZHUHAROV |
| 4 |
><kalin@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | As far as speed is concerned, it is comparable with CVS. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>Be more specific please. We're looking for benchmarks showing how well |
| 8 |
>it performs in terms of speed, bandwidth and memory usage for actions |
| 9 |
>such as commit and update on a repository with 100k+ small files. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
I have hardware on which I would be more than willing to perform this |
| 14 |
type of benchmark. Can you provide/point to a repository of files to |
| 15 |
benchmark, and a set of operations to perform? The obvious being the |
| 16 |
portage tree itself, with some/all of its history (however much is |
| 17 |
necessary for the benchmarks to be meaningful), but would require a set |
| 18 |
of activities to generate a relevant benchmark. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
For reference, I have a server that is not yet in production, but |
| 21 |
readying for production in the next few months, running Gentoo, on a |
| 22 |
raid-5 array of SCSI harddrives. I don't remember the precise |
| 23 |
specifications off hand, but I could provide them along with the results. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Would this be useful? Would more/other hardware be necessary useful? (I |
| 26 |
have access to multiple workstations on which I could run simultaneous |
| 27 |
tests, causing transactions to become relevant and important, etc etc, |
| 28 |
and further hardware might be available here.) Hope this can be of some |
| 29 |
use to you in trying to make this evaluation. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-Chandler Carruth |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives