some time comparison when using git, mercurial with svn (subversion)
Augie Fackler
durin42 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 19 08:04:22 CDT 2011
On Jun 19, 2011, at 7:46 AM, rupert.thurner wrote:
>
> fyi, i timed the conversion of a small repository from subversion to
> git-1.7.4 / hg-1.7.5.
>
> git hg
> --------------------------
> svn clone 18 31
> push 2 9
> (times in minutes)
>
> especially surprising was that mercurial was 4 times slower when
> pushing. the details .......
>
> $ time git svn clone https://gar.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gar/csw/mgar/gar/v2
> gar
> ...
> real 18m14.018s
> user 2m19.037s
> sys 1m20.341s
>
> $ time git push origin master
> Counting objects: 5900, done.
> Delta compression using up to 2 threads.
> Compressing objects: 100% (5775/5775), done.
> Writing objects: 100% (5900/5900), 1.42 MiB | 2.31 MiB/s, done.
> Total 5900 (delta 4190), reused 0 (delta 0)
>
> To git at github.com:opencsw/gar.git
> * [new branch] master -> master
>
> real 1m57.673s
> user 0m2.308s
> sys 0m0.404s
>
>
> $ time hg clone svn+https://gar.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/gar/csw/
> mgar/gar/v2 gar-hg
> ....
> pulled 927 revisions
> updating to branch default
> 228 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
>
> real 31m8.127s
> user 9m13.095s
> sys 0m9.941s
>
>
> $ time hg push https://rupert.thurner@gar.googlecode.com/hg
> warning: gar.googlecode.com certificate with fingerprint
> a9:be:c0:4a:da:1c:eb:4c:31:9d:78:27:48:99:f4:9c:9a:e8:53:c8 not
> verified (check hostfingerprints or web.cacerts config setting)
> pushing to https://rupert.thurner@gar.googlecode.com/hg
> searching for changes
> http authorization required
> realm: Google Code Mercurial Repository
> user: rupert.thurner
> password:
> warning: gar.googlecode.com certificate with fingerprint
> a9:be:c0:4a:da:1c:eb:4c:31:9d:78:27:48:99:f4:9c:9a:e8:53:c8 not
> verified (check hostfingerprints or web.cacerts config setting)
> remote: Success.
>
> real 9m28.179s
> user 0m1.288s
> sys 0m0.244s
This push test isn't even remotely fair - you're pushing to a normal git repository on a local spinning disk, but to hg-on-bigtable which is *known* to be almost an order of magnitude slower than stock hg. Consider retrying your benchmark to a hosting provider with a more orthodox setup? Preferably push both repositories to the same machine so you can have known-similar hardware?
> _______________________________________________
> Mercurial mailing list
> Mercurial at selenic.com
> http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list