This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Git and GCC

From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
To: peff at peff dot net
Cc: nico at cam dot org, jonsmirl at gmail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, harvey dot harrison at gmail dot com, ismail at pardus dot org dot tr, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, git at vger dot kernel dot org
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:31:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Git and GCC
References: <20071206071503.GA19504@coredump.intra.peff.net> <alpine.LFD.0.99999.0712060915590.555@xanadu.home> <20071206173946.GA10845@sigill.intra.peff.net>

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:39:47 -0500

> I tried the threaded repack with pack.threads = 3 on a dual-processor
> machine, and got:
> 
>   time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
> 
>   real    309m59.849s
>   user    377m43.948s
>   sys     8m23.319s
> 
>   -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff  28570088 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.idx
>   -r--r--r-- 1 peff peff 339922573 2007-12-06 10:11 pack-1fa336f33126d762988ed6fc3f44ecbe0209da3c.pack
> 
> So it is about 5% bigger. What is really disappointing is that we saved
> only about 20% of the time. I didn't sit around watching the stages, but
> my guess is that we spent a long time in the single threaded "writing
> objects" stage with a thrashing delta cache.

If someone can give me a good way to run this test case I can
have my 64-cpu Niagara-2 box crunch on this and see how fast
it goes and how much larger the resulting pack file is.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Jeff King

References:
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Jeff King
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Nicolas Pitre
- Re: Git and GCC
  - From: Jeff King

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]