On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:45:34AM -0700, Steven Grimm wrote:
Then I wrote the following simple shell script to make repeated trivial
changes.
#!/bin/sh
i=1
while true; do
echo $i testfile
echo update to $i comment
echo $i `date`
i=`expr $i + 1`
I am testing Monotone (0.29) out on a Fedora Core 4 system. I was using
tailor to bring a bunch of changes over from an existing Subversion
repository so I could see how the performance would be with a realistic
code base after we'd been using it for a while.
At first, tailor was rolling
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 10:45 -0700, Steven Grimm wrote:
[...]
And I am definitely seeing performance degrade. The first 20 revisions
took about 6 seconds to get through; now it's up at revision 485 and
it's taking 2 seconds per commit. While it's sitting there it is chewing
100% of one of
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:45, Steven Grimm wrote:
And I am definitely seeing performance degrade. The first 20 revisions
took about 6 seconds to get through; now it's up at revision 485 and
it's taking 2 seconds per commit. While it's sitting there it is chewing
100% of one of the
Thomas Moschny wrote:
This is a known problem. The commit command calls get_branch_heads() (at
least) two times; and get_branch_heads() execution time is directly dependent
on the number of revisions already in that branch. This is not directly a bug
of get_branch_heads(), but a problem of
Timothy Brownawell wrote:
commit calls get_branch_heads() twice in order to provide this message.
That's probably where the linear slowdown is coming from. Probably we
should add an option to skip this, especially for automated uses like
tailor.
Well, tailor performance isn't really the
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:57:30PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
This is absolutely unnecessary, because the validity of a cert (not
to be confused with the trust in that cert) is a constant. It could
be verified once and for all and stored in the database together
with the cert.
Well, the
On Thursday 31 August 2006 23:03, Daniel Carosone wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:57:30PM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
This is absolutely unnecessary, because the validity of a cert (not
to be confused with the trust in that cert) is a constant. It could
be verified once and for all and
