On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:55:01PM +0200, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Err, "faster"? The following is the moral equiv of 4 kernel updates
> > which had nothing to do using BitKeeper instead of CVS. The local copy
> > was in San Francisco and the remote copy is Cort's machine in New Mexico
> > over a 384Kbits/sec link. All 4 updates in 5 seconds. Anyone have a
> > CVS tree they can try to get comparable numbers?
>
> Try: http://innominate.org/~tgr/projects/lksr/
Thanks, that was helpful. Comparison numbers for a null update of the 2.3
kernel, which means you update and then update again, timing the second update
to get some idea of the system's best case throughput, are:
CVS: 139.5 seconds
BK: 1.6 seconds
The BK tree is the 2.3 kernel tree maintained by FSMlabs.
--
---
Larry McVoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
