kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Carsten Koch <Carsten.Koch@icem.com> writes:
...
>>So the only problem - at least in this test case - is,
>>that 1465 bytes (or 440 bytes) of end result are packed
>>in 60 k bytes of protocol, resulting in over 4000%
>>(or over 13000% )protocol overhead.
>
>
> Well, an important question is whether that overhead is a constant, or
> is always similarly proportional to the data size.
>
> What happens if you run the same experiments with much bigger
> directories?
The same thing.
I looked at the data and much of the overhead is really
*per directory entry*, not per transaction.
The original test case I ran (the one that takes 10 hours)
has not been analyzed with ethereal (would have taken a
lot of effort and disk space ;-) .
But at least I ran it through wc -l.
So you can see that "svn list" eventually displayed 139529
result lines in 9 hours and 53 minutes over a 128kbps link.
I also checked that the 128kbps link was fully loaded, so
we transmitted roughly
35636 seconds * 128kbps = 4561408000 bits = 570MB
to get 139529 result lines. Assuming the result lines were
an average of 20 characters long, they would comprise a
net result of 4 MB, again resulting in 13000% (or a
factor of 130), just as in the small example.
Carsten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 19 11:36:23 2005