John Peacock <jpeacock <at> rowman.com> writes:
>
> Simon Large wrote:
> > Windows network share access may be slow, but not _that_ slow.
In my case the repository is stored on a local disk.
> Oh yes it is! Windows filesystem [in general] degrades very badly with the
> number of files involved; BDB works better than FSFS in this respect since
there
> are many more [small] files used in FSFS than the few [large] files in BDB.
The overall number of files in the fsfs repository is 36 - that shouldn't be too
much ;). A bdb-version of the repository is a bit faster than the fsfs-version
(about 40%) , but not fast.
Not only the access method file: is slower, http: and svn: behave very similar
(on the server side).
Maybe this is also of interest:
Although there are 5 revisions in the repository with many (>20000) changed
paths, the largest revision is the revision of the initial import. The size of
the file of this revision is 680mb (about 90% of the size of the whole
repository). A svn log -v -r for only that revision takes >90% of the time, that
a svn log -v on the whole repository would take (about 150s).
Side note:
From my descriptions my repository may look like a synthetic test repository
which in this shape would never exist in the real world, but in fact it reflects
the requirements of the source code of one of the products of my company. Right
now this source code is maintianed in VSS and I would really really like to
switch it to SVN/TSVN. This performance issue is the last major issue, that I
have to solve, before I can switch.
Ronny
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jun 9 15:14:18 2005