Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: 5 days old?

On Apr 30, 2020, at 21:28, bch <> wrote:
> I thought the plan to move to HG hasn't been finalised yet, am I missing something?  Plus, why HG and not Fossil, if the end-result consumption is via Git anyways?
> Last I heard fossil had scaling issues due to the large number of artifacts that needed to be tracked. I may be able to trawl notes and find some particulars, or Joerg may be able to comment from memory on the technical aspects.
> I was really hopeful for fossil as a solution as it seems really sane for many reasons:
> 1) good user interface(s)
> 2) good, novel ticket handling
> 3) sane architecture
> 4) portable C implementation
> 5) BSD license 
> I think in the end though Joerg reckoned the scalability issue was too much.

There are scalability issues with Mercurial, too.  I cloned NetBSD src on a 1GB RAM, 1GB swap, 4 CPU VM (Debian Buster) using git from the GitHub project and from

Git consumed 675MB of memory at its peak, and took 4m38s.  

Cloning with hg from consumes all RAM and all swap before the OOM killer takes it out.  

Upping the memory to 2GB RAM (still 1GB swap) gets further along, to the point where hg forks into $(CPU_COUNT) processes for “updating to bookmark @ on branch trunk” before the OOM killer takes it out.  

Finally, 2GB RAM and 1GB swap, and enabling vm.overcommit_memory was enough to let hg finish in 17m52s.

John Franklin

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index