Well, looking at the SourceHut code, it's written in Python and handles git by spawning a "git" process.
In other words, it was written with no consideration for performance at all.
A competent engineer would use Rust or C++ with an in-process git library, perhaps rewrite part of the git library or git storage system if necessary for high performance, and would design a fast storage system with SSDs, and rate-limit slow storage access if there has to be slow storage.
That's the actual problem, LLMs are seemingly just adding a bit of load that is exposing the extremely amateurish design of their software, unsuitable for being exposed on the public Internet.
Anyway, they can work around the problem by restricting their systems to logged in users (and restricting registration if necessary), and using mirroring their content to well-implemented external services like GitHub or GitLab and redirecting the users there.
> A competent engineer would use Rust or C++ with an in-process git library,
The issue is, there aren't any fully featured ones of these yet. Sure, they do exist, but you run into issues. Spawning a git process isn't about not considering performance, it's about correctness. You simply won't be able to support a lot of people if you don't just spawn a git process.
>In other words, it was written with no consideration for performance at all.
This is a bold assumption to make on such little data other than "your opinion".
Developing in python is not a negative, and depending on the people, the scope of the product and the intended use is completely acceptable. The balance of "it performs what its needed to do in an acceptable window of performance while providing x,y,z benefits" is almost a certain discussion the company and its developers have had.
What it never tried to solve was scaling to LLM and crawler abuse. Claiming that they have made no performance considerations because they can't scale to handle a use case they never supported is just idiotic.
>That's the actual problem, LLMs are seemingly just adding a bit of load that is exposing the extremely amateurish design of their software.
"Just adding a bit of load" != 75%+ of calls. You can't be discussing this in good faith and make simplistic reductions like this. Either you are trolling or naively blaming the victims without any rational thought or knowledge.
In other words, it was written with no consideration for performance at all.
A competent engineer would use Rust or C++ with an in-process git library, perhaps rewrite part of the git library or git storage system if necessary for high performance, and would design a fast storage system with SSDs, and rate-limit slow storage access if there has to be slow storage.
That's the actual problem, LLMs are seemingly just adding a bit of load that is exposing the extremely amateurish design of their software, unsuitable for being exposed on the public Internet.
Anyway, they can work around the problem by restricting their systems to logged in users (and restricting registration if necessary), and using mirroring their content to well-implemented external services like GitHub or GitLab and redirecting the users there.