[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Milan Cvetkovic
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:24:17 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030425

Stefan Monnier wrote:
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.

And how exactly did you do it (disable revlib checking)?

Thanks, Milan

- 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.


Gnu-arch-users mailing list

GNU arch home page:

reply via email to

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