sapling/tests/test-bundle-type.t

196 lines
4.4 KiB
Perl
Raw Normal View History

$ cat << EOF >> $HGRCPATH
> [format]
> usegeneraldelta=yes
> EOF
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
bundle w/o type option
$ hg init t1
$ hg init t2
$ cd t1
$ echo blablablablabla > file.txt
$ hg ci -Ama
adding file.txt
$ hg log | grep summary
summary: a
$ hg bundle ../b1 ../t2
searching for changes
1 changesets found
$ cd ../t2
$ hg pull ../b1
pulling from ../b1
requesting all changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
(run 'hg update' to get a working copy)
$ hg up
1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
$ hg log | grep summary
summary: a
$ cd ..
test bundle types
util: implement zstd compression engine Now that zstd is vendored and being built (in some configurations), we can implement a compression engine for zstd! The zstd engine is a little different from existing engines. Because it may not always be present, we have to defer load the module in case importing it fails. We facilitate this via a cached property that holds a reference to the module or None. The "available" method is implemented to reflect reality. The zstd engine declares its ability to handle bundles using the "zstd" human name and the "ZS" internal name. The latter was chosen because internal names are 2 characters (by only convention I think) and "ZS" seems reasonable. The engine, like others, supports specifying the compression level. However, there are no consumers of this API that yet pass in that argument. I have plans to change that, so stay tuned. Since all we need to do to support bundle generation with a new compression engine is implement and register the compression engine, bundle generation with zstd "just works!" Tests demonstrating this have been added. How does performance of zstd for bundle generation compare? On the mozilla-unified repo, `hg bundle --all -t <engine>-v2` yields the following on my i7-6700K on Linux: engine CPU time bundle size vs orig size throughput none 97.0s 4,054,405,584 100.0% 41.8 MB/s bzip2 (l=9) 393.6s 975,343,098 24.0% 10.3 MB/s gzip (l=6) 184.0s 1,140,533,074 28.1% 22.0 MB/s zstd (l=1) 108.2s 1,119,434,718 27.6% 37.5 MB/s zstd (l=2) 111.3s 1,078,328,002 26.6% 36.4 MB/s zstd (l=3) 113.7s 1,011,823,727 25.0% 35.7 MB/s zstd (l=4) 116.0s 1,008,965,888 24.9% 35.0 MB/s zstd (l=5) 121.0s 977,203,148 24.1% 33.5 MB/s zstd (l=6) 131.7s 927,360,198 22.9% 30.8 MB/s zstd (l=7) 139.0s 912,808,505 22.5% 29.2 MB/s zstd (l=12) 198.1s 854,527,714 21.1% 20.5 MB/s zstd (l=18) 681.6s 789,750,690 19.5% 5.9 MB/s On compression, zstd for bundle generation delivers: * better compression than gzip with significantly less CPU utilization * better than bzip2 compression ratios while still being significantly faster than gzip * ability to aggressively tune compression level to achieve significantly smaller bundles That last point is important. With clone bundles, a server can pre-generate a bundle file, upload it to a static file server, and redirect clients to transparently download it during clone. The server could choose to produce a zstd bundle with the highest compression settings possible. This would take a very long time - a magnitude longer than a typical zstd bundle generation - but the result would be hundreds of megabytes smaller! For the clone volume we do at Mozilla, this could translate to petabytes of bandwidth savings per year and faster clones (due to smaller transfer size). I don't have detailed numbers to report on decompression. However, zstd decompression is fast: >1 GB/s output throughput on this machine, even through the Python bindings. And it can do that regardless of the compression level of the input. By the time you have enough data to worry about overhead of decompression, you have plenty of other things to worry about performance wise. zstd is wins all around. I can't wait to implement support for it on the wire protocol and in revlogs.
2016-11-11 12:10:07 +03:00
$ testbundle() {
> echo % test bundle type $1
> hg init t$1
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
> cd t1
util: implement zstd compression engine Now that zstd is vendored and being built (in some configurations), we can implement a compression engine for zstd! The zstd engine is a little different from existing engines. Because it may not always be present, we have to defer load the module in case importing it fails. We facilitate this via a cached property that holds a reference to the module or None. The "available" method is implemented to reflect reality. The zstd engine declares its ability to handle bundles using the "zstd" human name and the "ZS" internal name. The latter was chosen because internal names are 2 characters (by only convention I think) and "ZS" seems reasonable. The engine, like others, supports specifying the compression level. However, there are no consumers of this API that yet pass in that argument. I have plans to change that, so stay tuned. Since all we need to do to support bundle generation with a new compression engine is implement and register the compression engine, bundle generation with zstd "just works!" Tests demonstrating this have been added. How does performance of zstd for bundle generation compare? On the mozilla-unified repo, `hg bundle --all -t <engine>-v2` yields the following on my i7-6700K on Linux: engine CPU time bundle size vs orig size throughput none 97.0s 4,054,405,584 100.0% 41.8 MB/s bzip2 (l=9) 393.6s 975,343,098 24.0% 10.3 MB/s gzip (l=6) 184.0s 1,140,533,074 28.1% 22.0 MB/s zstd (l=1) 108.2s 1,119,434,718 27.6% 37.5 MB/s zstd (l=2) 111.3s 1,078,328,002 26.6% 36.4 MB/s zstd (l=3) 113.7s 1,011,823,727 25.0% 35.7 MB/s zstd (l=4) 116.0s 1,008,965,888 24.9% 35.0 MB/s zstd (l=5) 121.0s 977,203,148 24.1% 33.5 MB/s zstd (l=6) 131.7s 927,360,198 22.9% 30.8 MB/s zstd (l=7) 139.0s 912,808,505 22.5% 29.2 MB/s zstd (l=12) 198.1s 854,527,714 21.1% 20.5 MB/s zstd (l=18) 681.6s 789,750,690 19.5% 5.9 MB/s On compression, zstd for bundle generation delivers: * better compression than gzip with significantly less CPU utilization * better than bzip2 compression ratios while still being significantly faster than gzip * ability to aggressively tune compression level to achieve significantly smaller bundles That last point is important. With clone bundles, a server can pre-generate a bundle file, upload it to a static file server, and redirect clients to transparently download it during clone. The server could choose to produce a zstd bundle with the highest compression settings possible. This would take a very long time - a magnitude longer than a typical zstd bundle generation - but the result would be hundreds of megabytes smaller! For the clone volume we do at Mozilla, this could translate to petabytes of bandwidth savings per year and faster clones (due to smaller transfer size). I don't have detailed numbers to report on decompression. However, zstd decompression is fast: >1 GB/s output throughput on this machine, even through the Python bindings. And it can do that regardless of the compression level of the input. By the time you have enough data to worry about overhead of decompression, you have plenty of other things to worry about performance wise. zstd is wins all around. I can't wait to implement support for it on the wire protocol and in revlogs.
2016-11-11 12:10:07 +03:00
> hg bundle -t $1 ../b$1 ../t$1
> f -q -B6 -D ../b$1; echo
> cd ../t$1
> hg debugbundle ../b$1
> hg debugbundle --spec ../b$1
> echo
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
> cd ..
util: implement zstd compression engine Now that zstd is vendored and being built (in some configurations), we can implement a compression engine for zstd! The zstd engine is a little different from existing engines. Because it may not always be present, we have to defer load the module in case importing it fails. We facilitate this via a cached property that holds a reference to the module or None. The "available" method is implemented to reflect reality. The zstd engine declares its ability to handle bundles using the "zstd" human name and the "ZS" internal name. The latter was chosen because internal names are 2 characters (by only convention I think) and "ZS" seems reasonable. The engine, like others, supports specifying the compression level. However, there are no consumers of this API that yet pass in that argument. I have plans to change that, so stay tuned. Since all we need to do to support bundle generation with a new compression engine is implement and register the compression engine, bundle generation with zstd "just works!" Tests demonstrating this have been added. How does performance of zstd for bundle generation compare? On the mozilla-unified repo, `hg bundle --all -t <engine>-v2` yields the following on my i7-6700K on Linux: engine CPU time bundle size vs orig size throughput none 97.0s 4,054,405,584 100.0% 41.8 MB/s bzip2 (l=9) 393.6s 975,343,098 24.0% 10.3 MB/s gzip (l=6) 184.0s 1,140,533,074 28.1% 22.0 MB/s zstd (l=1) 108.2s 1,119,434,718 27.6% 37.5 MB/s zstd (l=2) 111.3s 1,078,328,002 26.6% 36.4 MB/s zstd (l=3) 113.7s 1,011,823,727 25.0% 35.7 MB/s zstd (l=4) 116.0s 1,008,965,888 24.9% 35.0 MB/s zstd (l=5) 121.0s 977,203,148 24.1% 33.5 MB/s zstd (l=6) 131.7s 927,360,198 22.9% 30.8 MB/s zstd (l=7) 139.0s 912,808,505 22.5% 29.2 MB/s zstd (l=12) 198.1s 854,527,714 21.1% 20.5 MB/s zstd (l=18) 681.6s 789,750,690 19.5% 5.9 MB/s On compression, zstd for bundle generation delivers: * better compression than gzip with significantly less CPU utilization * better than bzip2 compression ratios while still being significantly faster than gzip * ability to aggressively tune compression level to achieve significantly smaller bundles That last point is important. With clone bundles, a server can pre-generate a bundle file, upload it to a static file server, and redirect clients to transparently download it during clone. The server could choose to produce a zstd bundle with the highest compression settings possible. This would take a very long time - a magnitude longer than a typical zstd bundle generation - but the result would be hundreds of megabytes smaller! For the clone volume we do at Mozilla, this could translate to petabytes of bandwidth savings per year and faster clones (due to smaller transfer size). I don't have detailed numbers to report on decompression. However, zstd decompression is fast: >1 GB/s output throughput on this machine, even through the Python bindings. And it can do that regardless of the compression level of the input. By the time you have enough data to worry about overhead of decompression, you have plenty of other things to worry about performance wise. zstd is wins all around. I can't wait to implement support for it on the wire protocol and in revlogs.
2016-11-11 12:10:07 +03:00
> }
$ for t in "None" "bzip2" "gzip" "none-v2" "v2" "v1" "gzip-v1"; do
> testbundle $t
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
> done
% test bundle type None
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: {}
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
none-v2
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
% test bundle type bzip2
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: sortdict([('Compression', 'BZ')])
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
bzip2-v2
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
% test bundle type gzip
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: sortdict([('Compression', 'GZ')])
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
gzip-v2
% test bundle type none-v2
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: {}
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
none-v2
% test bundle type v2
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: sortdict([('Compression', 'BZ')])
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
bzip2-v2
% test bundle type v1
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG10BZ
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
bzip2-v1
% test bundle type gzip-v1
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG10GZ
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
gzip-v1
Compression level can be adjusted for bundle2 bundles
$ hg init test-complevel
$ cd test-complevel
$ cat > file0 << EOF
> this is a file
> with some text
> and some more text
> and other content
> EOF
$ cat > file1 << EOF
> this is another file
> with some other content
> and repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated content
> EOF
$ hg -q commit -A -m initial
$ hg bundle -a -t gzip-v2 gzip-v2.hg
1 changesets found
$ f --size gzip-v2.hg
gzip-v2.hg: size=427
$ hg --config experimental.bundlecomplevel=1 bundle -a -t gzip-v2 gzip-v2-level1.hg
1 changesets found
$ f --size gzip-v2-level1.hg
gzip-v2-level1.hg: size=435
$ cd ..
util: implement zstd compression engine Now that zstd is vendored and being built (in some configurations), we can implement a compression engine for zstd! The zstd engine is a little different from existing engines. Because it may not always be present, we have to defer load the module in case importing it fails. We facilitate this via a cached property that holds a reference to the module or None. The "available" method is implemented to reflect reality. The zstd engine declares its ability to handle bundles using the "zstd" human name and the "ZS" internal name. The latter was chosen because internal names are 2 characters (by only convention I think) and "ZS" seems reasonable. The engine, like others, supports specifying the compression level. However, there are no consumers of this API that yet pass in that argument. I have plans to change that, so stay tuned. Since all we need to do to support bundle generation with a new compression engine is implement and register the compression engine, bundle generation with zstd "just works!" Tests demonstrating this have been added. How does performance of zstd for bundle generation compare? On the mozilla-unified repo, `hg bundle --all -t <engine>-v2` yields the following on my i7-6700K on Linux: engine CPU time bundle size vs orig size throughput none 97.0s 4,054,405,584 100.0% 41.8 MB/s bzip2 (l=9) 393.6s 975,343,098 24.0% 10.3 MB/s gzip (l=6) 184.0s 1,140,533,074 28.1% 22.0 MB/s zstd (l=1) 108.2s 1,119,434,718 27.6% 37.5 MB/s zstd (l=2) 111.3s 1,078,328,002 26.6% 36.4 MB/s zstd (l=3) 113.7s 1,011,823,727 25.0% 35.7 MB/s zstd (l=4) 116.0s 1,008,965,888 24.9% 35.0 MB/s zstd (l=5) 121.0s 977,203,148 24.1% 33.5 MB/s zstd (l=6) 131.7s 927,360,198 22.9% 30.8 MB/s zstd (l=7) 139.0s 912,808,505 22.5% 29.2 MB/s zstd (l=12) 198.1s 854,527,714 21.1% 20.5 MB/s zstd (l=18) 681.6s 789,750,690 19.5% 5.9 MB/s On compression, zstd for bundle generation delivers: * better compression than gzip with significantly less CPU utilization * better than bzip2 compression ratios while still being significantly faster than gzip * ability to aggressively tune compression level to achieve significantly smaller bundles That last point is important. With clone bundles, a server can pre-generate a bundle file, upload it to a static file server, and redirect clients to transparently download it during clone. The server could choose to produce a zstd bundle with the highest compression settings possible. This would take a very long time - a magnitude longer than a typical zstd bundle generation - but the result would be hundreds of megabytes smaller! For the clone volume we do at Mozilla, this could translate to petabytes of bandwidth savings per year and faster clones (due to smaller transfer size). I don't have detailed numbers to report on decompression. However, zstd decompression is fast: >1 GB/s output throughput on this machine, even through the Python bindings. And it can do that regardless of the compression level of the input. By the time you have enough data to worry about overhead of decompression, you have plenty of other things to worry about performance wise. zstd is wins all around. I can't wait to implement support for it on the wire protocol and in revlogs.
2016-11-11 12:10:07 +03:00
#if zstd
$ for t in "zstd" "zstd-v2"; do
> testbundle $t
> done
% test bundle type zstd
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: sortdict([('Compression', 'ZS')])
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
zstd-v2
% test bundle type zstd-v2
searching for changes
1 changesets found
HG20\x00\x00 (esc)
Stream params: sortdict([('Compression', 'ZS')])
changegroup -- "sortdict([('version', '02'), ('nbchanges', '1')])"
c35a0f9217e65d1fdb90c936ffa7dbe679f83ddf
zstd-v2
#else
zstd is a valid engine but isn't available
$ hg -R t1 bundle -a -t zstd irrelevant.hg
abort: compression engine zstd could not be loaded
[255]
#endif
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
test garbage file
$ echo garbage > bgarbage
$ hg init tgarbage
$ cd tgarbage
$ hg pull ../bgarbage
pulling from ../bgarbage
abort: ../bgarbage: not a Mercurial bundle
2010-09-17 02:51:32 +04:00
[255]
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
$ cd ..
test invalid bundle type
$ cd t1
$ hg bundle -a -t garbage ../bgarbage
abort: garbage is not a recognized bundle specification
(see 'hg help bundle' for supported values for --type)
2010-09-17 02:51:32 +04:00
[255]
2010-08-14 05:23:56 +04:00
$ cd ..