[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 13:54:10 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3.50 (gnu/linux)

> Main problem seems to be that inode-signature support is currently a bit
> spotty (e.g., updates don't update them, last time I check, explicit id
> checks don't take advantage of them, etc).

Indeed, in my experience, tla's performance is pretty bad for the following
- inode-signatures are only updated upon commit.
- checking the revlib's consistency doubles the number of stat calls.
  (ironically, the revlib checking is mostly due to the fear of corruption
  with --link stuff.  I don't want to use (and can't anyway) --link so I've
  disabld revlib checking).  Disabling revlib checking makes `tla
  file-diffs' instantaneous (instead of taking several seconds), as it
  should be.
- most importantly: (almost) all operations apply to the whole tree.
  So even if you work in a small subdirectory of a dozen files, all
  operations will take time proportional to the thousands of files in
  your project.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]