Re: Official Git mirror?

[Óscar Fuentes]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

[snip]

>> Bzr is quite CPU- and memory-intensive, to the point of being almost
>> unbearable when cloning a large branch (i.e. Emacs) on a netbook.
>
> That's not true, at least not wrt CPU.  Your own data refutes this:
>
>     real    17m41.424s
>     user    7m56.250s
>     sys     0m8.240s

First: that's on a fast desktop machine. My experience says that the netbook
(currently unavailable) on the same network will take 6 times more CPU
time. I recall having to copy the bzr Emacs repository from the desktop
machine to the netbook (instead of cloning it with bzr) after waiting
for more than an hour and losing patience. That was on the local
network.

Second: bzr is downloading approx. 450 MB over a 1 MB/s ADSL line. On
the best case it would take 7.5 minutes (it takes 9.8). For this specific
case of cloning the bzr emacs repo on Launchpad, saying that it is mostly
network-bound is accurate, but not by much. As soon as you start using a
slightly faster network or a slower machine the CPU time dominates.

> Here are a few of my data points, with different machines and
> different network bandwidths:

[snip]

> In all but one case, the CPU time is 1/3 to 1/7 of the elapsed time.
> That's not how a CPU-bound app looks like.

Without precise specs of the machines and networks for each timing, it
is hard to interpret those results.

>> Maybe the machines that work faster for you are the more powerful
>> ones?
>
> No, they are on faster networks.