On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 05:37:59PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote: > > Actually, now that I think about it, optimize --checkpoint *also* is > > worse than an "initial record", which is one of the things that darcs > > has trouble with--but Ian has largely fixed in darcs-unstable. > > IMHO, we should use a different format for checkpoints -- hunk patches > from the empty tree are not a good idea. > > Changing the on-disk format of patches will help a lot.
Indeed, that should help. But even as things are now, a darcs-unstable initial record of the linux kernel requires only 10 times the CPU time that tar czf does, and only 7.5 times the wallclock time. So if we assume that tar is pretty much optimal, we only have one order of magnitude improvement left to be made. I expect that changing the hunk format (as we've discussed) should pretty much get us that order of magnitude in improvement in CPU time. The memory usage is way worse than that of tar, but I'm optimistic that we can improve things a bit in that realm. Perhaps (for example) by storing PackedString file paths, or by making the directory-reading portion of slurp lazy. In any case, 450M isn't such bad maximum memory consumption for a project the size of the kernel. -- David Roundy _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
