| 1 |
On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a significant |
| 5 |
> >> cost to an rsync. |
| 6 |
> > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more efficient |
| 7 |
> > than rsync. Or maybe it would be already? |
| 8 |
> Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient client-side |
| 9 |
> for some time. Server-side I don't know about, but I've presumed that's |
| 10 |
> the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't included switching the default |
| 11 |
> for user-syncs to git. I expect user/client side, git would be more |
| 12 |
> efficient already, but as I said, that's handwavey guesses. |
| 13 |
No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons: |
| 16 |
1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git. |
| 17 |
2. rsync for users will actually be LESS traffic than Git. |
| 18 |
- You can easily prove this. |
| 19 |
- Change tree A-B-C-D |
| 20 |
- exclude the generated metadata first of all |
| 21 |
- Git will include all intermediate steps A..D |
| 22 |
- rsync will jump you straight to D. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead |
| 27 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 28 |
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85 |
Archives