Re: Cloning speed comparison, round II

Dear diary, on Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 08:40:11PM CET, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] said that...

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

             rsync   git+ssh(*)   git(**)   http

git.git      0m45s   0m34s        5m30s     4m01s (++)

cogito.git   2m09s   1m54s (+)    4m30s     15m11s (only single run)


(*) git+ssh was to master.kernel.org, which was under significant load
    from some seemingly runaway gzip process, so that slowed things
    down.

(**) The unpacking was slooooooooow yet the load was quite low. This
     should be investigated, the native git fetching is much slower
     than even HTTP.

(BTW, it's obviously not much slower than HTTP - I wrote that after the
first git run, but I screwed up myself at that one.)

So I think the difference between your git+ssh and git tests are purely 
due to the fact that master.kernel.org sees a lot less load (both in CPU 
and in networking) than the public sites, and the time differences have 
nothing to do with the protocol per se.

Well, at the time of fetching, master.kernel.org with git+ssh had load
about ~3.5 and some wild gzip was eating most of the CPU there. So if
the git protocol still manages to be TEN times slower while rsync goes
full speed from that machine, I would say that this means the git server
requires way too much CPU.

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
VI has two modes: the one in which it beeps and the one in which
it doesn't.