Skip Tavakkolian once said:
> thanks; i should have checked that. running it on the fossil+venti server
> brings it down a bit. still, it's not stellar.
>
> bootes% go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 81.480s
> bootes% go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 79.719s
Here's a CL to buffer the writes in TestLar
On Mon May 5 01:19:06 EDT 2014, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > Your numbers don't look entirely abnormal. That test issues
> > over a million small writes. (Although it really should be
> > using bufio).
>
> Are you suggesting we ought to change pack? I don't mind doing it if
> it's likely to b
thanks; i should have checked that. running it on the fossil+venti server
brings it down a bit. still, it's not stellar.
bootes% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 81.480s
bootes% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 79.719s
On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Anthony Martin wrote:
> Skip Tavakkolian once said:
>
> Your numbers don't look entirely abnormal. That test issues
> over a million small writes. (Although it really should be
> using bufio).
Are you suggesting we ought to change pack? I don't mind doing it if
it's likely to be accepted by the developers. On NetBSD and my slow
Plan 9 network, ther
Skip Tavakkolian once said:
> is anyone else seeing similar results for cmd/pack?
>
> % go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pack 172.505s
>
> this is on an atom (d525 @ 1.8ghz, 4gb). same test on an arm (quad core a9
> @ 1.7ghz, 2gb, linux 3.8) takes much less time:
>
> % go test
> PASS
> ok cmd/pac
is anyone else seeing similar results for cmd/pack?
% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack 172.505s
this is on an atom (d525 @ 1.8ghz, 4gb). same test on an arm (quad core a9
@ 1.7ghz, 2gb, linux 3.8) takes much less time:
% go test
PASS
ok cmd/pack20.872s
