On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 05/08/2012 01:03 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> >> wrote: >>> Mark, can you see if this (and previous commits I've made) fixes the file >>> handle abuse problem you reported? >>> >>> I tested this locally using "ulimit -n 200" to reduce the file handle limit >>> on my box from 8192 to 200. Before this change, I saw the same error you >>> did. Afterward, no error. Hoping you experience the same. >> >> Confirmed. This resolves it for me too. > > Sweet. Thanks!
Now that I can run the test I wanted, the performance improvement is pretty nice. Checking out our code goes from 1m35s down to 0m44s. I cannot help but think that number should still be a lot lower though. This scenario seems like it would be very similar to what a Git checkout would do now, probably even less work has to be done. I do not have a Git-svn version of our codebase to test with, but I am guessing a Git checkout of our code would be less than 10 seconds. So it might be an indication we could be doing more optimization in our libraries. That said, I still think it is a nice improvement and I imagine it would scale up and down based on size and number of files. Does anyone have a git version of our tree they could try this with? How long does it take git to materialize a working copy of our trunk? -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
