[PATCH 00 of 10] RFC: Light-Weight Copy

[Sune Foldager]

On 09-09-2010 10:51, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:35, Sune Foldager<cryo at cyanite.org>  wrote:
>> As for performance in general, there are a few more indirections in the
>> general revlog code path, and a bit more still for filelog, although for
>> non-copy entries it amounts to about 2-3 indirect calls. For copy entries
>> there is some repacking when receiving changegroups, and some partial
>> repacking when adding local changesets. Among other things this can require
>> twice the memory for file data storage. I believe there is room for slight
>> improvement in this area.
>
> It would be interesting to have some hard numbers on the performance
> of clone --pull, maybe, or other revlog-intensive actions.

I'll do some experiments; note that with a future changegroup2 command, 
or similar, we should be able to send lwcopy-ed changegroups directly, 
without repacking, for improved speed. Also, stream cloning is 
unaffected by this, of course, except that it, like in the case of an 
older client, will not be available sometimes.

/Sune