On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we have to get this work done soon. We cannot release with >> performance like it is. How do we define the scope of the work that >> needs to be done so that we can divide and conquer and get these >> changes in place? > > It sounds like we should codify what our performance targets are. > > What are the operations (and test cases?) that are important to us? -- justin
I agree that we will have to codify this. > Is it acceptable if 1.7 is as fast as 1.6? Should it be faster? > Could we accept a slowdown for 1.7 as long as we know how we can get > it on par (or faster) for 1.8? I think it should be faster overall. Like Ivan, I think status and update on large working copies are areas where I would like to see show significant improvements. I can live with some operations being comparable to 1.6. I do not think we can accept any major regressions in performance. It looks like checkout is currently a major regression (but we should try to codify that). It definitely looks like NFS mounted working copies is a major regression. I do not think we can ship without getting those back to 1.6 levels. CPU usage is also way higher which might yield regressions that are harder for us to quantify with benchmarks. I think we can only keep an eye on that and hope it comes down as we make improvements to overall performance. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
