5 ms·
How long ago was this? And what OS? I know we're faster than unzip on some platforms, but IIRC we just found a pretty awful performance issue on...linux? I thin
by durin42 8y ago
How long ago was this? And what OS? I know we're faster than unzip on some platforms, but IIRC we just found a pretty awful performance issue on...linux? I think?... that meant our parallelized approach to writing files was burning a ton of time in the kernel filesystem locks or something.
- LukeShu 8y agoJust a few days ago. Parabola GNU/Linux-libre (like Arch Linux). On btrfs, if that makes a difference. From what I could tell, whatever the slow part is, it wasn't parallelized at all; of 16 cores, 15 were idle, and 1 was pegged at 100% (and very low disk-wait). I've been meaning to dig in to this more. I'd tried adding --stream, figuring that maybe it was re-compressing the entire repo; but that just lead to a warning about "server doesn't support streams" or something like that. I'll definitely try ygra's suggestion to try --pull, and if that doesn't yield good results, I'll actually dig in to the sources and see what's going on.
- durin42 8y agoSounds a lot like https://twitter.com/indygreg/status/1028097388261433344 https://twitter.com/indygreg/status/1028097388261433344 - I'm pretty sure Greg was working with hg when he noticed this issue. In any event, if you're enthusiastic about this kind of thing, we'd love to have more eyes on making hg checkouts consistently fast, even in the face of filesystems undermining those efforts. ;)
- LukeShu 8y agoIf it were just btrfs being silly, I'd expect the high CPU usage to be attributed to a kernel thread, not to the hg process. But we'll see :)