Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:55:01PM +0200, Jamie Lokier wrote:
>> > Err, "faster"? The following is the moral equiv of 4 kernel updates
>> > which had nothing to do using BitKeeper instead of CVS. The local copy
>> > was in San Francisco and the remote copy is Cort's machine in New Mexico
>> > over a 384Kbits/sec link. All 4 updates in 5 seconds. Anyone have a
>> > CVS tree they can try to get comparable numbers?
>>
>> Try: http://innominate.org/~tgr/projects/lksr/
> Thanks, that was helpful. Comparison numbers for a null update of the 2.3
> kernel, which means you update and then update again, timing the second update
> to get some idea of the system's best case throughput, are:
> CVS: 139.5 seconds
> BK: 1.6 seconds
> The BK tree is the 2.3 kernel tree maintained by FSMlabs.
larry - this one is a bit unfair i think: the innominate.org tree
runs right now on a 200mhz pentium and is quite a bit worse
connected to you than the bk tree - also it's a "synthetic"
tree which contains for instance 100+ tags in the 2.3
tree which might make it a bit slow too ...
but all that does not mean that bk is bad - haven't had a look at
it so far - i just wanted to say: better avoid such comparisions
- i think the mozilla idea (from some mails later) side by side
will give a much better comparision
t
-- thomas.graichen@innominate.de technical director innominate AG clustering & security networking people tel: +49.30.308806-13 fax: -77 http://innominate.de - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 23 2000 - 21:00:14 EST