Re: File descriptor leak of rep-cache.db in 1.6.x
From: Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen <danchr_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 22:19:09 +0200
On 3 Jun 2010, at 19:27, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote:
> Some statistics:
…which were wrong. Jelmer was a bit surprised that Subvertpy should be 2x slower than the SWIG bindings, and he was right: I had some debugging code left over which called ‘gc.collect()’ regularly.
BDB repository w. Subvertpy:
FSFS repository w. Subvertpy:
BDB repository w. SWIG:
FSFS repository w. SWIG:
> Based on this I would say that BDB repositories appear to not leak much when using Subvertpy. Everything else leaks quite a lot. Granted, there is a significant CPU overhead in Subvertpy, but I believe its much cleaner API and better memory handling compensate for that. Besides, many people using hgsubversion will have their conversions I/O bound rather CPU bound.
More accurately: There appear to be no downsides to using Subvertpy.
-- Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen danchr_at_gmail.com
|
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.