On Thu, 5 Jun 2003 10:04:51 -0400
Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:02:48AM -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> > David Waite wrote:
> > >Not saying whether or not 4.1.x is this much slower or not, but
> > >this doesn't seem like a very fair test - 0.22 vs 0.23, 128 MB vs
> > >512 MB.
> >
> > I did want to add that caveat as a possible factor, but low memory
> > shouldn't cause extra logging, should it? The system was pretty
> > much unloaded other than this import, so any thrashing was just the
> > svn server processes themselves.
>
> I agree. I would say the logging is the cause of the slowdown.
>
> I would go back and compare 0.23 against 0.23 just to be sure the
> logging problem isn't the result of changes in SVN though.
FWIW
I recall seeing 4.1.24 eat a lot of memory until svn was OOM killed
back at 0.18. The same svn 0.18 worked just fine with BDB 4.0.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 5 17:18:54 2003