From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 1 21:59:35 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id VAA17191 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 21:59:35 -0800 Received: from ref.tfs.com (ref.tfs.com [140.145.254.251]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA17185; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 21:59:33 -0800 Received: (from phk@localhost) by ref.tfs.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id VAA02884; Wed, 1 Feb 1995 21:59:31 -0800 From: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-Id: <199502020559.VAA02884@ref.tfs.com> Subject: Re: Optimizing CVS? To: jkh@FreeBSD.org (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 1995 21:59:31 -0800 (PST) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, jkh@freefall.cdrom.com, roberto@blaise.ibp.fr, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com In-Reply-To: <6912.791680896@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 1, 95 03:21:36 pm Content-Type: text Content-Length: 518 Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > Profiling cvs doesn't show much in-core file system activity. I think > > it's just spending too much time waiting to write metadata and temporary > > files to the disk. This is nothing new, so it's not clear why 1.1.5 > > was faster. > > So.. Um.. Now that you've measured it, how do we *fix* it? :-) How much time does cvs actually spend fork/exec'ing rcs ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp TRW Financial Systems, Inc. FreeBSD has, until now, not one single time had an undetected error. :-)