> From: Óscar Fuentes <o...@wanadoo.es>Sometimes it indeed makes no significant difference, but sometimes it
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:40:37 +0100
> Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> writes:
> >> It seems that "nosmart" is used for compensating for servers with busy
> > No, it's used to compensate for overly "smart" server when there's no
> But then the plan is failing, because the timings I posted show that
wins big time. Observe:
Transferred: 540480KiB (199.9K/s r:540403K w:77K)
bzr branch nosmart+bzr://bzr.savannah.gnu.org/emacs/trunk
Transferred: 780914KiB (789.2K/s r:780640K w:275K)
In the thread I mentioned on the Bazaar list, someone else also
> over a 3 Mbit/s connection:That's almost 2 hours slashed to 48 minutes, an almost 3-fold speedup.
> > The "smart" part is for sending less data, which is not going to winNot if "being smart" wastes CPU cycles on the server side and causes
> > for the initial checkout.
> You said on the other post that cloning time is network-bound. So being
it to use the available bandwidth less efficiently. See the network
throughput figures above, reported by bzr on .bzr.log.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.