On Thu, Jan 03, 2008 at 11:11:40AM +0000, Simon Marlow wrote:
Anyhow, could you retry this test with the above change in methodology, and let me know if (a) the pull is still slow the first time and (b) if it's much faster the second time (after the reverse unpull/pull)?
I think I've done it in both directions now, and it got faster, but still much slower than darcs1:
$ time darcs2 unpull --from-tag 2007-09-25 -a Finished unpulling. 58.68s real 50.64s user 6.36s system 97% darcs2 unpull --from-tag 2007-09-25 -a $ time darcs2 pull -a ../ghc-darcs2 Pulling from "../ghc-darcs2"... Finished pulling and applying. 53.28s real 44.62s user 7.10s system 97% darcs2 pull -a ../ghc-darcs2
This is still an order of magnitude slower than darcs1 for the same operation. (these times are now on the local filesystem, BTW)
I've recently found the problem leading to this slowdown (I believe) and get about an order-of-magnitude improvement in the speed of a pull of 400 patches in the ghc repository. It turned out to be an issue that scaled with the size (width) of the repository, not with the number of patches (which had been the obvious suspect), which was causing trouble when applying to the pristine cache. At this point, darcs-2 outperforms darcs-1 on most tests that I've tried, so it'd be a good time to find some more performance problems, if you can... and I don't doubt that there are more out there. -- David Roundy Department of Physics Oregon State University