bzr wins a performance test

[Gé Weijers]

I checked this morning's head of the Linus' linux-2.6.git repository  
into new Git, Hg, and Bzr repositories.

The difference is so pronounced because each file in the repository  
loses space to the Linux file system losing space at the end of the  
last block of each file. If you have lots of small files that hurts.  
I also estimated the size of each repository by the command

	tar cf - .hg | wc -c

the differences are still there, but not as pronounced.



                 Uncompressed    Compressed      Tarball
Git:            139200          70212           71710720
Bazaar:         -               79388           81131520
Mercurial:      -               138460          93317120

As far as I'm concerned this is fairly irrelevant, given that on most  
projects the size of your checked out files dwarfs the repository  
size. Speed and ease of use should win every time.

Gé



On Jan 18, 2008, at 1:33 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:

> bzr recently switched repository formats (again), and is now using a
> git-style pack.  An initial commit to a large, new bzr repo takes  
> about
> half the disk space of a comparable hg repo, and is consequently  
> faster
> on machines with reduced disk bandwidth.  Memory consumption is much
> higher than hg.
>
> Unlike git (so far), bzr repacks automatically.  I haven't checked to
> see what performance impact that has.  It's still slower at other
> operations that I've tried.
>
> Interesting.
>
> 	<b
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial-devel mailing list
> Mercurial-devel at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel

--
Gé Weijers
ge at weijers.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20080123/a7b4379a/attachment.htm