Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull

[Jeff Garzik]

Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 04:22:19AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 15 May 2005 10:54:05 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > > Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:57:35PM CEST, I got a letter
> > > where Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> told me that...
> > >
> > > > Does this need an HTTP request (and round trip) per object? It appears
> > > > to. That's 2200 requests/round trips for my 800 patch benchmark.
> >
> > > Yes it does. On the other side, it needs no server-side CGI. But I guess
> > > it should be pretty easy to write some kind of server-side CGI streamer,
> > > and it would then easily take just a single HTTP request (telling the
> > > server the commit ID and receiving back all the objects).
> >
> > 	I don't understand what was wrong with Jeff Garzik's previous
> > suggestion of using http/1.1 pipelining to coalesce the round trips.
>
>
> You can't do pipelining if you can't look ahead far enough to fill the pipe.

Even if you cannot fill a pipeline, HTTP/1.1 is sufficiently useful 
simply by removing the per-request connection overhead.

	Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/