On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I should be able to get http-pull down to the neighborhood of
> > (current) ssh-pull; http-pull is that slow (when the source repository
> > isn't packed) because it's entirely sequential, rather than
Daniel Barkalow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I should be able to get http-pull down to the neighborhood of
> (current) ssh-pull; http-pull is that slow (when the source repository
> isn't packed) because it's entirely sequential, rather than overlapping
> requests like ssh-pull now does.
I li
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've wondered how slow the protocols other than rsync are, and the
> (well, a bit dubious; especially wrt. caching on the remote side)
> results are:
>
> git clone-pack:ssh 25s
> git rsync 27s
> git
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Running it over ssh would be a good way to do authentication...
Well, if you have ssh as an option, you don't need git-daemon any more,
since the protocol that git-daemon does runs quite well over ssh on its
own...
The onl
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> Running it over ssh would be a good way to do authentication...
Well, if you have ssh as an option, you don't need git-daemon any more,
since the protocol that git-daemon does runs quite well over ssh on its
own...
The only point of git-daemon r
Petr Baudis wrote:
In my tests, the git daemon was noticeably faster than ssh, if only
because the authentication actually tends to be a big part of the overhead
in small pulls.
Oh. Sounds nice, are there plans to run this on kernel.org too? (So far,
90% of my GIT network activity happens wi
Linus Torvalds wrote:
BTW, is the pack protocol flexible enough to be extended to support
pushing?
The _protocol_ could handle it, but you obviously need some kind of secure
authentication, and quite frankly, one of the selling points on git-daemon
right now is that it's all read-only and v
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> Oh. Sounds nice, are there plans to run this on kernel.org too? (So far,
> 90% of my GIT network activity happens with kernel.org; the rest is with
> my notebook, and I want to keep that ssh.)
Maybe. I don't know what the status of that is, but the pla
Dear diary, on Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:12:26AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, clone-pack is a clear winner for networks (but someone should
> > re-check that, especially compared to rsync, wr
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> Anyway, clone-pack is a clear winner for networks (but someone should
> re-check that, especially compared to rsync, wrt. server-side file
> caching); really cool fast, but not very practical for anonymous access.
git-daemon is for the anonymous acc
Hello,
I've wondered how slow the protocols other than rsync are, and the
(well, a bit dubious; especially wrt. caching on the remote side)
results are:
git clone-pack:ssh 25s
git rsync 27s
git http-pull 47s
git dumb-http
11 matches
Mail list logo
