Re: CVS/Subversion/Perforce Timing Statistics (Take 3)

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 01:10:45AM -0600, Joshua Jensen wrote:
> > I MUST be doing something wrong, because the Perforce timings
> > are not very good.
>
> Heh... I meant to say Subversion timings. Two hours of time tests do
> bad things to your mind...

People have said this before, but let me make it perfectly clear:

    The numbers are bad. Plain and simple. Nothing that you've done wrong on
    your part. Why?
    
    YOU'RE TESTING PRE-ALPHA SOFTWARE

We have done *very* little performance analysis and tuning. Kirby Bohling
has written some great tools, to let us concentrate on some of our
client-side syscall usage, but we haven't used them extensively yet. Why?
Because we aren't done with the feature set yet. It would be silly to work
on the performance now. About six weeks ago, we completely revamped the
commit model. We're in the process of revamping the repository structure.
Any of that work could immediately alter the entire performance model of the
software, so it is useless to try to optimize before it is done.

I don't want to discourage your timing. I'd love to see more of it. But it
seems rather invalid to make comparisons between pre-alpha software and
software that has been completed and refined for years.

Certainly, there are some spot-improvements that could be done right now
(e.g. rather than open/close .svn/README to test for an admin dir, we could
just stat() the file). Finding those spots will need a different type of
analysis tho. Finding larger types of fixes would probably be best in
another month or so.

[ of course, take all this with the caveat of "hey, it's open source. I can
  spend my time doing whatever I'd interests me..." :-) ]

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org