On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 08:34:57PM -0700, zooko wrote:
On Feb 6, 2008, at 11:58 AM, David Roundy wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:29:42AM -0700, zooko wrote:
time tar xjvf ciphercycles-20070205.tar.bz2
Any chance you could write up a little script that generates something
On Feb 7, 2008, at 1:11 PM, David Roundy wrote:
Thanks for the test case, Zooko, and for pointing out this regression!
Could you rerun your timings when you have pulled this change:
I pulled your latest patches and ran it again and it took around 20
seconds.
Way to go! That is within an
time tar xjvf ciphercycles-20070205.tar.bz2
hg 0m2.4s
time darcs-1.1.0pre init
0m0.6s
time darcs-1.1.0pre add -r ciphercycles-20070205
0m2.8s
time darcs-1.1.0pre record --all [EMAIL PROTECTED] -m'init
import of ciphercycles-20070205'
0m46.7s
# and now with darcs-2
time tar xjvf
On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:29:42AM -0700, zooko wrote:
time tar xjvf ciphercycles-20070205.tar.bz2
Any chance you could write up a little script that generates something
functionally equivalent to this directory for a benchmarking script?
Also, could you repeat this with the --hashed format? I
per droundy's request, here are timings of this same task with hashed-
format:
time tar xjvf ciphercycles-20070205.tar.bz2
time darcs-2pre init --hashed
0m0.0s
time darcs-2pre add -r ciphercycles-20070205
0m5.7s
time darcs-2pre record --all [EMAIL PROTECTED] -m'init import
of
Hi,
zooko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also, what's the memory use look like? Could this be an effect of
swapping?
No it can't, because I don't have swap on this machine. :-)
I know that the memory use is below 500 MB, or else it would have
crashed because I have only 500 MB on this
