Subject: Re: Git benchmarks at OpenOffice.org wiki

From: Andy Parkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:58:03 +0100

On Wednesday 2007 May 02, Julian Phillips wrote:

> A fully packed clone of the OOo git repo was indeed 1.3G, and the entrire
> checkout + repo was indeed 8.5G (using git 1.5.1.2).

I'm more confused now then.  I assumed the figures were accurate, but they 
cannot be:

                               CVS      git      SVN
Size of data on the server     8.5G     1.3G     n/a
Size of checkout               1.4G     2.8G     1.5G

I don't doubt the 1.3G on the server - and assume that is fully packed.  The 
checkout sizes are suspicious though.  Is that 2.8G packed?
 - If it is, then we can deduce that this is a repo+source size, since the
   server is packed size+0 therefore the size of the source tree is
    2.8G - 1.3G = 1.5G
   In which case the other figures are wrong:
    - CVS checkout is 1.4G - impossible, the source tree is 1.5G. And where is
      the overhead of the CVS directories which would make it more than 1.5G?
    - SVN checkout overhead is always _at least_ the size of the source tree 
      because it keeps a pristine copy of HEAD.  If the source tree is 1.5G,
      then this figure should be at least 3G.
 - If it is not, then we're back to "I don't believe that git was packed"

Something smells fishy here - either the source tree size is included in some, 
but not in others or the git repository wasn't packed.

Andy
-- 
Dr Andy Parkins, M Eng (hons), MIET
[email-masked]