Keith Packard wrote:
On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 09:45 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
quoted
More importantly, it really wouldn't have helped that much in this
situation. At least for me, the network is 90% of the problem, the
pack-file generation is at most 10%. So cached packfiles really only
matter for server-side problems (high CPU load, or lack of memory, or
heavy disk activity).
I'd like to see git use less CPU than CVS does on my distribution host;
some mechanism for re-using either existing or cached packs would help a
whole lot with that. The alternative is to see people switch to rsync
instead, which seems like a far worse idea.
A weird oddity; Cloning is faster over rsync, day-to-day pulling is not.
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231