| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
The perf test suite prefers to use test_file_size over 'wc -c' when
inside of a test_size block. One advantage is that accidentally writign
"wc -c file" (instead of "wc -c <file") does not inadvertently break the
tests (since the former will include the filename in the output of wc).
Both of the two uses of test_size use "wc -c", but let's convert those
to the more conventional test_file_size helper instead.
Signed-off-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Add performance tests to verify the performance of lookup table.
`p5310-pack-bitmaps.sh` contain tests with and without lookup table.
`p5312-pack-bitmaps-revs.sh` contain same tests with and without
lookup table but with `pack.writeReverseIndex` enabled.
Lookup table makes Git run faster in most of the cases. Below is the
result of `t/perf/p5310-pack-bitmaps.sh`.`perf/p5326-multi-pack-bitmaps.sh`
gives similar result. The repository used in the test is linux kernel.
Test this tree
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5310.4: enable lookup table: false 0.01(0.00+0.00)
5310.5: repack to disk 320.89(230.20+23.45)
5310.6: simulated clone 14.04(5.78+1.79)
5310.7: simulated fetch 1.95(3.05+0.20)
5310.8: pack to file (bitmap) 44.73(20.55+7.45)
5310.9: rev-list (commits) 0.78(0.46+0.10)
5310.10: rev-list (objects) 4.07(3.97+0.08)
5310.11: rev-list with tag negated via --not 0.06(0.02+0.03)
--all (objects)
5310.12: rev-list with negative tag (objects) 0.21(0.15+0.05)
5310.13: rev-list count with blob:none 0.24(0.17+0.06)
5310.14: rev-list count with blob:limit=1k 7.07(5.92+0.48)
5310.15: rev-list count with tree:0 0.25(0.17+0.07)
5310.16: simulated partial clone 5.67(3.28+0.64)
5310.18: clone (partial bitmap) 16.05(8.34+1.86)
5310.19: pack to file (partial bitmap) 59.76(27.22+7.43)
5310.20: rev-list with tree filter (partial bitmap) 0.90(0.18+0.16)
5310.24: enable lookup table: true 0.01(0.00+0.00)
5310.25: repack to disk 319.73(229.30+23.01)
5310.26: simulated clone 13.69(5.72+1.78)
5310.27: simulated fetch 1.84(3.02+0.16)
5310.28: pack to file (bitmap) 45.63(20.67+7.50)
5310.29: rev-list (commits) 0.56(0.39+0.8)
5310.30: rev-list (objects) 3.77(3.74+0.08)
5310.31: rev-list with tag negated via --not 0.05(0.02+0.03)
--all (objects)
5310.32: rev-list with negative tag (objects) 0.21(0.15+0.05)
5310.33: rev-list count with blob:none 0.23(0.17+0.05)
5310.34: rev-list count with blob:limit=1k 6.65(5.72+0.40)
5310.35: rev-list count with tree:0 0.23(0.16+0.06)
5310.36: simulated partial clone 5.57(3.26+0.59)
5310.38: clone (partial bitmap) 15.89(8.39+1.84)
5310.39: pack to file (partial bitmap) 58.32(27.55+7.47)
5310.40: rev-list with tree filter (partial bitmap) 0.73(0.18+0.15)
Test 4-15 are tested without using lookup table. Same tests are
repeated in 16-30 (using lookup table).
Mentored-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Co-Mentored-by: Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Abhradeep Chakraborty <chakrabortyabhradeep79@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
Enabling pack.writebitmaphashcache should always be a performance win.
It costs only 4 bytes per object on disk, and the timings in ae4f07fbcc
(pack-bitmap: implement optional name_hash cache, 2013-12-21) show it
improving fetch and partial-bitmap clone times by 40-50%.
The only reason we didn't enable it by default at the time is that early
versions of JGit's bitmap reader complained about the presence of
optional header bits it didn't understand. But that was changed in
JGit's d2fa3987a (Use bitcheck to check for presence of OPT_FULL option,
2013-10-30), which made it into JGit v3.5.0 in late 2014.
So let's turn this option on by default. It's backwards-compatible with
all versions of Git, and if you are also using JGit on the same
repository, you'd only run into problems using a version that's almost 5
years old.
We'll drop the manual setting from all of our test scripts, including
perf tests. This isn't strictly necessary, but it has two advantages:
1. If the hash-cache ever stops being enabled by default, our perf
regression tests will notice.
2. We can use the modified perf tests to show off the behavior of an
otherwise unconfigured repo, as shown below.
These are the results of a few of a perf tests against linux.git that
showed interesting results. You can see the expected speedup in 5310.4,
which was noted in ae4f07fbcc. Curiously, 5310.8 did not improve (and
actually got slower), despite seeing the opposite in ae4f07fbcc.
I don't have an explanation for that.
The tests from p5311 did not exist back then, but do show improvements
(a smaller pack due to better deltas, which we found in less time).
Test HEAD^ HEAD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5310.4: simulated fetch 7.39(22.70+0.25) 5.64(11.43+0.22) -23.7%
5310.8: clone (partial bitmap) 18.45(24.83+1.19) 19.94(28.40+1.36) +8.1%
5311.31: server (128 days) 0.41(1.13+0.05) 0.34(0.72+0.02) -17.1%
5311.32: size (128 days) 7.4M 7.0M -4.8%
5311.33: client (128 days) 1.33(1.49+0.06) 1.29(1.37+0.12) -3.0%
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
|
A server with bitmapped packs can serve a clone very
quickly. However, fetches are not necessarily made any
faster, because we spend a lot less time in object traversal
(which is what bitmaps help with) and more time finding
deltas (because we may have to throw out on-disk deltas if
the client does not have the base).
As a first step to making this faster, this patch introduces
a new perf script to measure fetches into a repo of various
ages from a fully-bitmapped server.
We separately measure the work done by the server (in
pack-objects) and that done by the client (in index-pack).
Furthermore, we measure the size of the resulting pack.
Breaking it down like this (instead of just doing a regular
"git fetch") lets us see how much each side benefits from
any changes. And since we know the pack size, if we estimate
the network speed, then one could calculate a complete
wall-clock time for the operation (though the script does
not do this automatically).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
|
