On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 00:26:31 -0700, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn wrote: > This text makes it sound as though users who upgrade to darcs 2.4 > from earlier versions of darcs can expect performance improvements, [snip] > Are we supposed to expect performance improvements from this > release? Perhaps the release announcement could be made more > specific about what, if any, operations are expected to be faster. > "Index-based diffing" means nothing to me, except possibly that the > "darcs whatsnew" and "darcs diff" commands should be effected.
You're right, Zooko. We are working to make sure our message on this is as clear, accurate and precise a message as possible. I think the heart of your answer lies in http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/2009-October/021826.html Namely, I expect these operations to be faster than in darcs 2.3.1: - record - unrecord - amend-record - revert - unrevert Furthermore, I think these things will have an impact: - darcs optimize --pristine [all commands?] - apply no longer sleeps for 1 second - darcs get now urges people to upgrade their servers to hashed [since darcs 2.3.1, getting from old-fashioned repos is slow because we convert to hashed for safety] Things confusing the issue are: - Hashed repos vs old-fashioned? I think we have to ignore this question for now and just focus on comparing hashed repos with hashed repos. - Recent regressions in check/repair. In between the first two betas, Petr has gained a lot of ground on the regressions. Not all of it, but it's much more reasonable - Many variables to account for: NFS? branches/symlinks? global cache size? size of repos in number of files? Some obstacles we still face (and which we need help on) are: - Insufficient grasp of statistics in the Darcs Team (Here's one way you can help out, darcs-users!) - Lack of benchmarks for the operations record/unrecord/amend-record/ revert/unrevert <http://repos.mornfall.net/darcs/benchmark> - Darcs-benchmark buggy on Windows: we need a Windows hacker to swoop in and fix this. Perhaps it's just another file handle leak? So it doesn't have to be a Windows guy, necessarily, just somebody who can help track down this leak and work with Max to see if things are better. - No way to compare optimize --pristine repos against the unoptimised repos Thanks, -- Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow> PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgpPBQ9y0IzcL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
