[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Checkpoint less frequently

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-02-20 17:45:30 CET

William Uther wrote:

>
> On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 04:37 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Brandon, this is a very good analysis. And it confirms my
>> suspicions that we're using _way_ too many transactions, and issuing far
>> too many txn_checkpoint calls.
>>
>> I think *the* major task for 0.19 is:
>>
>> * Stop creating transactions for read-only requests, and use
>> ordinary locks instead.
>
>
> Would this stop the log files growing on read-only requests?

That's sort of the point, yes -- but it would also reduce the number of
fsyncs on txn commits, which is one of the major slowdowns.

> % ls -l repos/db/log.*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 willu staff 81442 Feb 20 21:12 repos/db/log.0000000001
> % svn up wc
> At revision 1.
> % ls -l repos/db/log.*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 willu staff 86589 Feb 20 21:12 repos/db/log.0000000001
> % svn up wc
> At revision 1.
> % ls -l repos/db/log.*
> -rw-r--r-- 1 willu staff 89135 Feb 20 21:13 repos/db/log.0000000001
>
> Here it doesn't grow much, and so it isn't a major problem, but if it
> were to go away I wouldn't mind. :)

Imagine serving a web site from the repository. Log files will grow on
every hit -- for no good reason at all.

>> * Reduce the number of txn_checkpoint calls in our code, or even
>> eliminate them completely.
>>
>> Before amyone starts wondering if I'm off my rocker, consider this: you
>> only really need a txn_checkpoint when youre doing a hot backup of the
>> database, or removing old log files. Therefore, checkpoints should be
>> issued by the backup/cleanup scripts, definitely not in the critical
>> path.
>
>
> Reading http://www.sleepycat.com/docs/ref/transapp/checkpoint.html
>
> it looks like the database is safe with less frequent checkpointing.
> (checkpointing just syncs the database files. The log files are
> already on disk.) Note that sleepycat mention checkpointing every 60
> seconds, and "Because checkpoints can be quite expensive, choosing how
> often to perform a checkpoint is a common tuning parameter for
> Berkeley DB applications."

Yup. But it would be even better to move the checkpointing into a
separate process so that it's asynchronous with regard to the real
business managing versions.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 20 17:46:16 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.