I have a brand new (2 week old) MacBook Pro with 4 GB RAM.
I am more than happy to run your scripts if you like.
On the same machine I have 1.6.16 (and trunk r1092145) installed - so I can do a comparison run of both.
And if you think it is worthy of another comparison run, I have a 3 year old MacBook (non-Pro in flavour) that could also have the same runs.
On 15/04/2011, at 9:25 AM, Neels Hofmeyr wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 23:22 +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Hi Neels,
>> Great work, and good to see those numbers. But ... hold on a minute
>> before jumping to conclusions. IIUC you only tested one type of
>> platform: *nix with local disk (on a (powerful) VM, and on a (slightly
>> less powerful) "real machine"). It gives a good indication, but it's
>> definitely not enough to declare trunk release worthy
> I'm aware of that and am usually very careful to place "I'd say" and
> "IMHO" all around my humble "conclusions" ;)
> As-is, my scripts definitely won't run on Windows. The core is python,
> but there's a thin layer of bash around it that calls the python with
> the desired settings and filenames, so the bash stuff needs to be looked
> at and translated to BAT ...or python probably.
> It could work on OSX without changes, AFAIK.
> Frankly, I won't personally go into testing on Windows or a WC on an NFS
> mount, because, *IMHO*, both Win and WC-on-NFS are misguided, and I
> personally can't be bothered. This is where people using those things
> and whose jobs depend on svn 1.7 doing well on them should get involved,
> as far as I'm concerned.
> Johan is right to highlight the limitations. And I can add a large
> portion of limitations inherent to benchmarks like these (hardware
> particulars, time measurement inaccuracies, simulation validity,
> statistics, interpretation, selective perception, chance,... ). Only the
> actual release 1.7.0 will bring all the real issues to the surface.
> And yet, the conclusion I find from my past and present test runs is:
> the performance I have seen in my setup a while back has definitely been
> a show-stopper. And now I don't see those particular show-stoppers
> anymore. So, yes, I should probably be more clear instead of saying
> "release-worthy" -- I meant it rather negatively defined, as in: my
> personal perf show-stoppers have vanished. (Thanks for poking)
> So, does anyone do Windows? Do you speak bash, python and BAT? Want to
> know about perf on your setup? I'll gladly send you my scripts and
> explain anything you want to know about it.
> Oh, and about the time factors getting much better on the VM -- that's
> not just because the VM is faster than my home machines, since then
> 1.6.x would also be faster on the VM, resulting in similar time factors
> as on other hardware. I don't know in detail why we're seeing this, but
> it must be something like, maybe SQlite has some magic that enhances
> performance when -- I don't know -- the CPU bus is very wide, or disk
> cache is fast, or something like that, boosting fast hardware even more.
> It must be something that svn 1.6 can't benefit from.
> Enough talk :)
>> For all we know there could be a massive regression on Windows or
>> MacOS, or on NTFS specifically (like the locking in WC-1, which was
>> orders of magnitude slower on Windows/NTFS than on Linux), or, as
>> already hinted a few times by Philip, on network-mounted filesystems:
>> NFS, CIFS, ...
>> So, to get a better picture, your test-suite should be run on a
>> variety of platforms (others can help, I guess, like with Mark's
>> perf-tests). Can your test-suite be run "as is" by others on Windows
>> for example? Maybe you could already run it yourself on an NFS-mounted
>> I think we need to at least test [ *nix | Windows | MacOS ] x [ local
>> disk | remote disk ] (ok maybe *nix is too coarse-grained, as is local
>> disk etc..., but you get the picture).
Received on 2011-04-15 03:15:02 CEST