Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> stress.pl isn't really the right kind of test for this. You need a huge
> repository to see the difference (or the timeouts).
Nah, stress.pl is always a "right kind of test" for a change that
affects the database. Sure, the purpose of the change may have
nothing to do with performance under stress.pl conditions... but
running stress.pl can still be useful in determining the real (as
opposed to projected) effects of the change.
> Deadlocks? I can't see how removing a txn_checkpoint could cause
> deadlocks. Are you sure it wasn't something else?
Well, honestly no, I'm not sure it wasn't something else, so I'm not
going to worry about it too much until we hear reports from the field.
I mean, I got the deadlocks with the change, and didn't get them
without it, but I only did one run each way. I don't feel it's enough
data to fret over yet, just something for us to make a mental note of.
> I can't recall the thread now, but I do remember people reporting that
> removing this checkpoint (or adding parameters to make "take" less
> often) would avoid client timeouts during long operations on large
> repositories.
>
> Now I wonder. Your report of deadlocks worries me a bit. Perhaps those
> people who reported problems could try again with the current code?
That would be good in any case, yeah.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 4 02:40:26 2003