Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Tuesday 20 December 2005 04:07, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> >On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:17:56 +0900 Kalin KOZHUHAROV
> >
> ><kalin@××××××××.net> wrote:
> > | As far as speed is concerned, it is comparable with CVS.
> >
> >Be more specific please. We're looking for benchmarks showing how well
> >it performs in terms of speed, bandwidth and memory usage for actions
> >such as commit and update on a repository with 100k+ small files.
>
> I have hardware on which I would be more than willing to perform this
> type of benchmark. Can you provide/point to a repository of files to
> benchmark, and a set of operations to perform? The obvious being the
> portage tree itself, with some/all of its history (however much is
> necessary for the benchmarks to be meaningful), but would require a set
> of activities to generate a relevant benchmark.
>
> For reference, I have a server that is not yet in production, but
> readying for production in the next few months, running Gentoo, on a
> raid-5 array of SCSI harddrives. I don't remember the precise
> specifications off hand, but I could provide them along with the results.
>
> Would this be useful? Would more/other hardware be necessary useful? (I
> have access to multiple workstations on which I could run simultaneous
> tests, causing transactions to become relevant and important, etc etc,
> and further hardware might be available here.) Hope this can be of some
> use to you in trying to make this evaluation.

In this respect we want to know things like:

- Checkout time of a full new tree (no load, and with load)

- Update time (without load, and with load)

- Concurrency performance (how do multiple simultaneous commits and updates
  perform)

- Is there a difference between checking out and committing parts of the tree
  instead of the full tree.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net