1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
|
For a tree holding 2.4.18 (two copies), 2.4.19, 2.4.20
With gzip -9:
mbp@hope% du .bzr
195110 .bzr/text-store
20 .bzr/revision-store
12355 .bzr/inventory-store
216325 .bzr
mbp@hope% du -s .
523128 .
Without gzip:
This is actually a pretty bad example because of deleting and
re-importing 2.4.18, but still not totally unreasonable.
----
linux-2.4.0: 116399 kB
after addding everything: 119505kB
bzr status 2.68s user 0.13s system 84% cpu 3.330 total
bzr commit 'import 2.4.0' 4.41s user 2.15s system 11% cpu 59.490 total
242446 .
122068 .bzr
----
Performance (2005-03-01)
To add all files from linux-2.4.18: about 70s, mostly inventory
serialization/deserialization.
To commit:
- finished, 6.520u/3.870s cpu, 33.940u/10.730s cum
- 134.040 elapsed
Interesting that it spends so long on external processing! I wonder
if this is for running uuidgen? Let's try generating things
internally.
Great, this cuts it to 17.15s user 0.61s system 83% cpu 21.365 total
to add, with no external command time. The commit now seems to spend
most of its time copying to disk.
- finished, 6.550u/3.320s cpu, 35.050u/9.870s cum
- 89.650 elapsed
I wonder where the external time is now? We were also using uuids()
for revisions.
Let's remove everything and re-add. Detecting everything was removed
takes
- finished, 2.460u/0.110s cpu, 0.000u/0.000s cum
- 3.430 elapsed
which may be mostly XML deserialization?
Just getting the previous revision takes about this long:
bzr invoked at Tue 2005-03-01 15:53:05.183741 EST +1100
by mbp@sourcefrog.net on hope
arguments: ['/home/mbp/bin/bzr', 'get-revision-inventory', 'mbp@sourcefrog.net-20050301044608-8513202ab179aff4-44e8cd52a41aa705']
platform: Linux-2.6.10-4-686-i686-with-debian-3.1
- finished, 3.910u/0.390s cpu, 0.000u/0.000s cum
- 6.690 elapsed
Now committing the revision which removes all files should be fast.
- finished, 1.280u/0.030s cpu, 0.000u/0.000s cum
- 1.320 elapsed
Now re-add with new code that doesn't call uuidgen:
- finished, 1.990u/0.030s cpu, 0.000u/0.000s cum
- 2.040 elapsed
16.61s user 0.55s system 74% cpu 22.965 total
Status::
- finished, 2.500u/0.110s cpu, 0.010u/0.000s cum
- 3.350 elapsed
And commit::
Now patch up to 2.4.19. There were some bugs in handling missing
directories, but with that fixed we do much better::
bzr status 5.86s user 1.06s system 10% cpu 1:05.55 total
This is slow because it's diffing every file; we should use mtimes etc
to make this faster. The cpu time is reasonable.
I see difflib is pure Python; it might be faster to shell out to GNU
diff when we need it.
Export is very fast::
- finished, 4.220u/1.480s cpu, 0.010u/0.000s cum
- 10.810 elapsed
bzr export 1 ../linux-2.4.18.export1 3.92s user 1.72s system 21% cpu 26.030 total
Now to find and add the new changes::
- finished, 2.190u/0.030s cpu, 0.000u/0.000s cum
- 2.300 elapsed
::
bzr commit 'import 2.4.19' 9.36s user 1.91s system 23% cpu 47.127 total
And the result is exactly right. Try exporting::
mbp@hope% bzr export 4 ../linux-2.4.19.export4
bzr export 4 ../linux-2.4.19.export4 4.21s user 1.70s system 18% cpu 32.304 total
and the export is exactly the same as the tarball.
Now we can optimize the diff a bit more by not comparing files that
have the right SHA-1 from within the commit
For comparison::
patch -p1 < ../kernel.pkg/patch-2.4.20 1.61s user 1.03s system 13% cpu 19.106 total
Now status after applying the .20 patch. With full-text verification::
bzr status 7.07s user 1.32s system 13% cpu 1:04.29 total
with that turned off::
bzr status 5.86s user 0.56s system 25% cpu 25.577 total
After adding:
bzr status 6.14s user 0.61s system 25% cpu 26.583 total
Should add some kind of profile counter for quick compares vs slow
compares.
bzr commit 'import 2.4.20' 7.57s user 1.36s system 20% cpu 43.568
total
export: finished, 3.940u/1.820s cpu, 0.000u/0.000s cum, 50.990 elapsed
also exports correctly
now .21
bzr commit 'import 2.4.1' 5.59s user 0.51s system 60% cpu 10.122 total
265520 .
137704 .bzr
import 2.4.2
317758 .
183463 .bzr
with everything through to 2.4.29 imported, the .bzr directory is
1132MB, compared to 185MB for one tree. The .bzr.log is 100MB!. So
the storage is 6.1 times larger, although we're holding 30 versions.
It's pretty large but I think not ridiculous. By contrast the tarball
for 2.4.0 is 104MB, and the tarball plus uncompressed patches are
315MB.
Uncompressed, the text store is 1041MB. So it is only three times
worse than patches, and could be compressed at presumably roughly
equal efficiency. It is large, but also a very simple design and
perhaps adequate for the moment. The text store with each file
individually gziped is 264MB, which is also a very simple format and
makes it less than twice the size of the source tree.
This is actually rather pessimistic because I think there are some
orphaned texts in there.
Measured by du, the compressed full-text store is 363MB; also probably
tolerable.
The real fix is perhaps to use some kind of weave, not so much for
storage efficiency as for fast annotation and therefore possible
annotation-based merge.
|