Performance with git

first draft for performance with git blog post

source/_posts/2014-10-17-geographic-replication-with-git-and-gitlab.markdown

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The switch from a centralized version control system such as CVS or SVN to Git i
 In Git, The main repository (origin) lies on the server, and developer machines have local copies.
 Developers commit to their local machines, and they only need to connect to the server when pushing their work back to the main repo.
-This means that even in the case of a server downtime, development can still continue on the developers' local clones.
+This means that even in the case of server downtime, development can still continue on the developers' local clones.
 **Server downtime is not as disruptive to the workflow as with a centralized tool.**
 After the first cloning of the origin repo, Git only registers the changes to the files, so the deltas between the origin and the clones are very small.
@@ -23,13 +23,14 @@ That's less information that needs to travel through the wire.
 Code searching is also considerably faster than with a centralized tool, because the search happens on the local clone of the repo.
-GitLab bundles a lot of other services and tools around the bare git.
+GitLab hosts the origin and adds functionalities to make it easier to work together between local clones, wherever those local clones reside.
 These additional functionalities (such as the issue tracker, the merge requests, user management) are designed to only reside on one server.
 While replicating the GitLab server might seem appealing at first sight, we strongly encourage that companies keep only one active GitLab server at a time.
-Replicating slows down the GitLab installation.
+Multiple active datastores in multiple geographic regions will need to coordinate on many requests, for example to ensure that no duplicate usernames are created and that issue numbers are incremental.
+This coordination slows down the process more than multiple geographic regions will speed it up.
 We also recommend keeping all developers in the company on one GitLab server, instead of splitting it into several smaller servers for different groups/departments.
 The rationale for this is that user management becomes more efficient as the GitLab instance is scaled up.
 If you are concerned with managing the codebase and fine-grained authorizations, you can consider either [forking](http://blogs.atlassian.com/2013/05/git-branching-and-forking-in-the-enterprise-why-fork/), or using [protected branches](http://doc.gitlab.com/ce/permissions/permissions.html)
-In case you do want geogrihic replication for you git server our partner WANdisco offers this in their [GitLab and Git Multisite](http://blogs.wandisco.com/2014/10/20/gitlab-git-multisite-architecture/) product.
+In case you do want geographic replication for your git server our partner WANdisco offers this in their [GitLab and Git Multisite](http://blogs.wandisco.com/2014/10/20/gitlab-git-multisite-architecture/) product.