[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revisi
From: |
Bug Goo |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library |
Date: |
Thu, 13 May 2004 15:45:11 +0000 |
Created as bug 106
On Thu May 6 19:13:09 2004, Tom Lord wrote:
>
> > From: Richard Curnow <address@hidden>
>
> > Supposing I have a revision library set up, and I do a get on a remote
> > http:// archive to do an initial checkout. There are several hundred
> > patches between the import revision and the patchlevel I'm getting,
> > across several branches/versions, all in the same remote archive. The
> > patchlevel I'm getting actually has a cacherev in the archive.
>
>
> > None of the ancestors are present in my revision library, and (at least
> > for now), I've no interest in any of them being added to it. I
> > literally want only the working copy, + a clean version of it put into
> > my revision library.
>
> > (If I ever want one of the ancestors, I'm totally prepared to take the
> > hit that the revlib's hard-linking will become sub-optimal).
>
> > When I do the 'tla get' command, tla starts searching backwards for an
> > ancestor:
>
> > * ensuring library has address@hidden/a--b--c.d--patch-NNN
> > * searching ancestor revision in library in archive address@hidden
>
> > I assume tla is examining each patch's log in the remote archive to find
> > continuations, so it can check if an ancestor is already in my revlib.
> > The trouble is, this is extremely slow; nothing appears after the
> > "searching.." message for several minutes. (I guess there's some
> > connection setup latency due to firewall and/or web-proxy issues.)
>
> > Is there any way of telling 'tla get' (or 'tla library-add' for that
> > matter) that I want it to go straight to the cacherev and use that, and
> > forget about trying to hardlink to an ancestor at all? The checkout
> > would then be done in a second or two instead of many minutes.
>
>
> The current heuristics have a strong bias towards the assumption that
> your revlib is normally somewhat dense in the areas of history that
> you are referring to. Your first `get' after hundreds of revisions
> of not `get'ing is therefore slow and a subsequent one, a smaller
> number of revisions later, is much faster.
>
> That said, yes, the heuristic is obviously letting you down in this
> case and should be (and shall be) tweaked accordingly, possibly along
> with a new library-config parameter.
>
> -t
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnu-arch-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users
>
> GNU arch home page:
> http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
>
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Aaron Bentley, 2004/05/10
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Stefan Monnier, 2004/05/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Andrew Suffield, 2004/05/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Tom Lord, 2004/05/11
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Andrew Suffield, 2004/05/12
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Richard Curnow, 2004/05/07
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Miles Bader, 2004/05/09
[Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library, Tom Lord, 2004/05/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [BUG] Avoiding ancestor scan during get with revision library,
Bug Goo <=