[darcs-users] performance regression in check/repair

Jason Dagit dagit at codersbase.com
Sat Jan 16 17:41:09 UTC 2010

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 7:44 AM, Eric Kow <kowey at darcs.net> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 00:32:07 -0800, Jason Dagit wrote:
> > I hope we're not glossing over anything here.  Is there a bug report for
> the
> > check failure in the beta yet?  It looks like 2.2 and 2.3 were able to
> check
> > that repo, so why should we ship 2.4 if it fails to check it?
> I'll bet that the check failure is just a consequence of the performance
> regression noted in <http://bugs.darcs.net/issue1731>, but if anybody
> wants to offer evidence to the contrary, please do file a report.

I compiled from the 2.4 branch last night and left the check running to find
this output:

The repository is consistent!

Hash mismatch(es)!

    index: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
  working: 5847c8b50a3191775d91cbaf8029fd1a75725517b0c70dde5bff759fc67ec1f8
    index: 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
  working: e9f80a49790bc926a3de5542274ae979753a3aedaef1b9fab0fcb74a21bc7c60
    index: 3c99d780272456ac9e4ab10056ee3e145700260cefee61921bf89017a15a6535
  working: 5a72b14295811905378a648e98da91922bbc69f21c1a209357834fc2e92da3f8

Bad index.

I want to stress that I upgraded hashed-storage from hackage and updated
darcs-2.4 from the release branch before doing this.  So I should have
Petr's latest fix for hashes of empty directories right?

Are these hash mismatches ignorable warnings or real problems?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osuosl.org/pipermail/darcs-users/attachments/20100116/98b996e4/attachment.htm>

More information about the darcs-users mailing list