On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 07:44:52PM -0400, James Lewis Nance wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 03:45:18PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > the 120MB for the checked out files and some mem for inodes. But the
> > difference in price is reasonable and if we have to buy memory for the
> > kernel developers, we'll do it once we can afford to do it. It's _really_
> > nice to measure your operations in seconds rather than minutes.
> It would be interesting to see the speed difference between bk and cvs
> for the mozilla sources. Doing a cvs update takes at least 10 minutes even
> if no files have changed. It took significantly longer when I was using
> a modem instead of a DSL line. You haven't benchmarked this case have you?
If you can get me a tarball of the CVS repository, I'll import the
history into a BK tree and then we can do side by side tests. I know
Mitchell Baker somewhat, so if she is still there, you might ping her.
I'd be interested to see this as well, so please let me know if the
CVS tarball is available. Just to be clear, I am not talking about the
results of a CVS checkout, I am talking about the actual CVS tree with
the RCS files - if I just imported the most recent versions, BK would
be unfairly faster because it would be storing a lot less history.
-- --- Larry McVoy firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to email@example.com Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST