From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1EoXwA-0002P4-Al for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:13:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jBK3BEjF001203; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:11:14 GMT Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.200]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jBK37893029403 for ; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:07:08 GMT Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id s6so923850wxc for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:07:08 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=hI1ICmJAKbZe8Z1/b/bmpoql+tewpRbEIKgAMY1Wjf06j77u47Vgb1hBlnvR1/XsB/7IgPlR3+CeY31JHHo4cwW4riUDkKNPprbhPRKdgMpQFGe4W0UeSj3H+RSAuoQF26xabxjkmc3FAoPACt22YiEn7sbviTdpEB4+gRqVrto= Received: by 10.70.51.16 with SMTP id y16mr2676668wxy; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?10.104.223.27? ( [152.17.58.126]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id h11sm11167767wxd.2005.12.19.19.07.07; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 19:07:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <43A77557.7070009@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:07:03 -0500 From: Chandler Carruth User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051002) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Viability of other SCM/version control systems for big repo's References: <43A70D98.7070504@gentoo.org> <1135027076.28875.11.camel@localhost> <20051219213810.GA9392@ferdyx.org> <20051219215544.GD18849@butchest.cubesearch.com> <623652d50512191435x2209a2f6p@mail.gmail.com> <43A74DB4.7040504@thinrope.net> <20051220003120.595b486f@snowdrop.home> In-Reply-To: <20051220003120.595b486f@snowdrop.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 55510cf2-27f2-41cf-a393-464b116c7d85 X-Archives-Hash: 43c9e879163a5039cb737e6c93e5d7fb Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:17:56 +0900 Kalin KOZHUHAROV > 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. -Chandler Carruth -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list