Hi,
@Martin Vahi said :
> « [...] CPU is AMD 64bit [...] »
I don't know what AMD 64 means for you : it could be a dual core or a Quad
core, and who knows an optocore...
The amount of RAM could let the calculation of the Checksum be faster ...
The bus speed can help a lot
etc.
> « [...] The uplink is ~1MiB/s (~10Mbps) and the ping
from my local machine to the remote machine is about 20ms [...] »
1MiB : it's theorical I guess.
You've said that files uploaded ONE by ONE should take 1 hour when a block of
the equivalent data is 2 hours ... ??
No, when you process ONCE a copy it is faster than MANY little ones ...
@Jungle said :
> « Doesn't this depend on the CPU and available RAM? Search the archives
for importing large repos »
It is not importing it is exporting : "commit" Martin said.
BTW, I agree with your FIRST question (RAM).
@Karel said :
> « [...] subversions trees [...] »
So Martin should migrate the SVN trees to a git ones first and then import the
git ones into a fossil one ... No ?
> « [...] If however I'm still off, I would appreciate
reference to some material explaining repo/chksums business in fossil. [...] »
So do I :-)
@Joerg said :
> « [...] What repo checksum does is compute a separate checksum over the
concatenation of all files [...] »
Hmmm...
You should say that EACH files are checksumed AND the repo itself is checksumed.
This should explain why it takes so long for a large repo... No ?
Best Regards
K.
De : Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]>
À : [email protected]
Envoyé le : Dimanche 4 décembre 2016 20h55
Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Bug report: Terrible Performance, when Checking in
LLVM Source
On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 09:23:37PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 04, 2016 at 08:50:44PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote:
> >> Otherwise as Nikita recommended, switching off repo checksums helps a
> >> lot, but then make sure you are on the filesystem like ZFS/btrfs which
> >> does that for you transparently and you do not need to do that on the
> >> fossil side.
> >
> > Eh, no. You do not need a file system with automatic hashing. Every
> > single file is still recorded by checksum in Fossil. It is not what the
> > repo checksum option does.
>
> Errhmm, thanks for correction. Am I right that repo checksum switched
> on means that modified files will be those where checksum stored and
> checksum computed from the file on fs is different? And once you
> switch that off, you rely purely on comparison of modification time on
> file in fs and I guess stored modif time in repo db? If so, then
> indeed I've been completely mistaken and thank you very much for your
> kind correction. If however I'm still off, I would appreciate
> reference to some material explaining repo/chksums business in fossil.
No. What repo checksum does is compute a separate checksum over the
concatenation of all files.
Joerg
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
