Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:00:41 +0200 (EET)
From: Miika Komu <miika@iki.fi>
To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0412211013550.13159@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] arch performance with large trees
Precedence: list
Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1451
Lines: 41
Our project (*) uses tla for storing a complete, modified linux kernel.
tla 1.2 is far too slow for e.g. commits and listing changes with the
configuration we use. Just yesterday I did a commit that finished in 15
minutes even with revision libraries (greedy+sparse).

We prefer to build inside the source tree which can explain at least part
of the slowness, but we're not giving up on this building method. We're
currently using the following configuration:

tagging-method:

  explicit
  untagged-source junk
  exclude ^(.arch-ids|\{arch\}|\.arch-inventory)$
  junk ^(.*\.o|.*\.cmd)$
  precious ^(\+.*|\.gdbinit|\.#ckpts-lock|=build\.*|=install\.*|CVS|CVS\.adm|RCS|R
CSLOG|SCCS|TAGS|.*\.config|.*\.config.old)$
  backup ^.*(~|\.~[0-9]+~|\.bak|\.swp|\.orig|\.rej|\.original|\.modified|\.reject|
\#\=.*\#|\.\#.*|#.*#)$
  unrecognized ^()$
  source ^[_=a-zA-Z0-9].*$

Do you know any neat tricks to make the commits faster? I've heard that
hard linking directly to the revlib could make this faster, but how much
faster (does anyone have any figures)?

Is tla-2.0 going to have any performance optimizations with large trees?

(*) http://hipl.hiit.fi/hipl/

-- 
Miika Komu              miika@iki.fi          http://www.iki.fi/miika/


_______________________________________________
Gnu-arch-users mailing list
Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users

GNU arch home page:
http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/