Eric Kow wrote:
> [top-posting because I'm not sure if Bertram is on this list and
> therefore if he received Petr's reply]
>
> Hi Bertram,
>
> I'll apply this, but could you run the standard darcs benchmarks
> (maybe improving them as needed) and send us some results?
I didn't want to download 130 MB worth of repos, so I used the darcs
repo for testing (again). For the record though, darcs-2.2.0 uses
more than 1 GB of memory when checking the ghc repo (unhashed),
while with the patch it's close to 250 MB.
=== zoo/darcs ===
|| 2.2.0-ac | +patch
==========++=============+===========
check || 43.1s 154M | 24.9s 21M
get full || 15.9s 10M | 16.1s 10M
get lazy || 0.9s 3M | 0.8s 3M
pull 100 || 6.6s 11M | 6.4s 11M
pull 1000 || 49.7s 35M | 51.6s 31M
repair || 32.7s 153M | 31.9s 19M
It didn't work out of the box; I had to change the parsing of the memory
usage for ghc 6.10.1; patch sent off list.
Bertram
_______________________________________________
darcs-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
