Re: BK->CVS, kernel.bkbits.net

[Neil Brown]

On Saturday April 19, [e-mail] wrote:
>                              By the way, I think the bandwidth is pretty
> darn low, after all that fuss almost nobody seems to use this, it just
> gives them warm fuzzies to know that the history has been captured in
> an open format which is worth it if it means no more BK flame wars, eh?

Well, I just became a big fan:

% time bk pull
....
444.95user 42.29system 49:09.46elapsed 16%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (326737major+196385minor)pagefaults 0swaps

% time cvs update
.....
2.78user 1.94system 4:12.36elapsed 1%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (333major+7240minor)pagefaults 0swaps

That is an order of magnitude difference in wall-clock time!  This is
on my humble notebook with "only" 128Meg of RAM.  The delay is mostly 
in the consistency checking.  Sure there is a way to turn that off.

NeilBrown

(I only used bk to
   "bk tag LATEST  ; bk pull; bk export -tpatch -rLATEST, > file"
 and cvs will allow the same end result)