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

Re: svntest and tmpfs slow as disk

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2004-01-31 03:00:37 CET

Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> writes:

> I'm now running svntest on a dual 3.06 Ghz system with 2 Gbytes of
> RAM and using the ramdisk, but it's just as fast as running
> the tests to disk.

Have the physical times got better, or the tmpfs times got worse?

> Has anybody else seen this.

No, I see tmpfs as significantly faster. Running update_tests.py on
an old dual P3 I see the physical disk take about 230s and the tmpfs
disk about 120s. That's wall clock time, both use about 60s of CPU.
The figures are much the same for ra_local and ra_svn, while ra_dav
takes about 10s more wall clock time.

One of the limiting factors is the command line client's timestamp
sleep; that's why the wall clock time is always going to be
significantly greater than the CPU time. On the other hand I can use
different build directories to run different RA layers in parallel

Philip Martin
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 31 03:01:24 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.