Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: >> - http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1589 (7-second overhead for pulling >> or unpulling one patch) > > This one still needs attention. > > We've pretty much verified that this is slow with hashed repositories > and fast with old-fashioned repositories. OK one second comes from the > deliberate delay and maybe the extra 6 comes from needless inventory > optimisation? I'll look at it. It may as well be that we are calling clean_hashdir, which is very slow, especially with large cache (and although I made it a lot faster in darcs-hs, it'll still take much longer than the equivalent operation in old-fashioned, which is nil).
>> - timestamps getting out of sync by hard-linking the hashed pristine files. >> I presume this is fixed by darcs-hs anyway. > > I believe that for projects with branches, fixing this is where the > biggest positive impact from hashed-storage will be (Rah!). > >> - dividing the cache into subdirectories to avoid bad filesystem >> performance with large directories. > > That's http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1536 :-) > > Petr: how do you feel about this? Do you rate this as being easier > than packs? Is it realistic to want this in Darcs 2.4? I am also > concerned about backward compatibility. How do we handle this? Format > change? For cache, this should be quite simple. For repos, this would be incompatible change and we probably can't afford to do it just yet. Yours, Petr. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
