diff options
author | Jeff King <peff@peff.net> | 2013-12-21 09:00:42 -0500 |
---|---|---|
committer | Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> | 2013-12-30 12:19:23 -0800 |
commit | bbcefa1f3f8355921137dd7a097b3ee3db66f023 (patch) | |
tree | 99c6e9e4bc6b5de153e0433d4d8839baf55de615 /fsck.c | |
parent | t: add basic bitmap functionality tests (diff) | |
download | tgif-bbcefa1f3f8355921137dd7a097b3ee3db66f023.tar.xz |
t/perf: add tests for pack bitmaps
This adds a few basic perf tests for the pack bitmap code to
show off its improvements. The tests are:
1. How long does it take to do a repack (it gets slower
with bitmaps, since we have to do extra work)?
2. How long does it take to do a clone (it gets faster
with bitmaps)?
3. How does a small fetch perform when we've just
repacked?
4. How does a clone perform when we haven't repacked since
a week of pushes?
Here are results against linux.git:
Test origin/master this tree
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5310.2: repack to disk 33.64(32.64+2.04) 67.67(66.75+1.84) +101.2%
5310.3: simulated clone 30.49(29.47+2.05) 1.20(1.10+0.10) -96.1%
5310.4: simulated fetch 3.49(6.79+0.06) 5.57(22.35+0.07) +59.6%
5310.6: partial bitmap 36.70(43.87+1.81) 8.18(21.92+0.73) -77.7%
You can see that we do take longer to repack, but we do way
better for further clones. A small fetch performs a bit
worse, as we spend way more time on delta compression (note
the heavy user CPU time, as we have 8 threads) due to the
lack of name hashes for the bitmapped objects.
The final test shows how the bitmaps degrade over time
between packs. There's still a significant speedup over the
non-bitmap case, but we don't do quite as well (we have to
spend time accessing the "new" objects the old fashioned
way, including delta compression).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'fsck.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions