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 <jo...@bec.de> À : fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org 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 <jo...@bec.de> 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 fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users