Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?

[Karel Gardas]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Tom Lord wrote:

>
>     > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
>
>     > Karel Gardas <address@hidden> writes:
>     > > Maybe they still think that Arch is just slow... and yes, I'm afraid
>     > > BK is still clear winner in term of performance when working on the
>     > > large source trees
>
>     > I wonder how true this is, actually; has anyone timed them on
>     > comparable hardware?
>
> Doesn't it seem that nobody may do so, legally (or at least without
> risking legal challenge), other than BitMover and (perhaps, I don't
> know one way or the other) their paying customers -- at least not if
> they intend to tell us the results for purposes of helping
> development.

Is it clearly prohibited to publicly write something about BK performance
(like it is for example for commercial RDBMSs)? I don't think so.

So what about to make simple set of:

- machines used by Arch users - perhaps those living on bleeding edge
- machines used by Linux kernel developers - those on which BK is running

compare both sets and coose the most similar configuration - then ask
these two (or perhaps more) users to do some testing and made benhmark
data public. And finally just compare.

BTW: I even think that we can try to ask Larry McVoy if it is prohibited
to use BK for testing its performance and directly compare with Arch and
other version controls...

Cheers,

Karel
--
Karel Gardas                  address@hidden
ObjectSecurity Ltd.           http://www.objectsecurity.com