Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> writes: > Upgrade can be faster or slower than checkout, it depends on what one > measures. I am using trunk as my data set, rather than 1.6.17, and I am > checking out from a local mirror across my LAN. > > Checkout with 1.6 is about 9s elapsed, 6s CPU. > Checkout with 1.7 is about the same. > Upgrade with 1.7 is about 4s elapsed, 4s CPU. > > So upgrade is clearly faster than checkout. > > But wait! I get the numbers above by running upgrade directly after > checkout, which means the the 1.6 working copy is in the client > machine's OS cache (the client is a Linux laptop with a standard, > rotating, SATA disk). If I drop the OS cache between checkout and > upgrade then: > > Upgrade with 1.7 is about 15s elapsed, 4s CPU. > > Upgrade is clearly slower than checkout. > > In this case upgrade always uses less CPU, so it is in some sense more > efficient, but it's not really possible to say whether it is faster or > slower.
Those checkout values are with a hot cache on the server. When the server has to wait for the disk (it's a standard desktop, rotating, SATA disk) the checkout is much slower: Checkout with 1.7 is about 120s elapsed, 9s CPU -- Philip
