On 23 Nov 2005 09:21:12 -0600, kfogel@collab.net <kfogel@collab.net> wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > We already have the performance benefit of HTTP pipelining (at the
> > expense of giving up on generic HTTP caching), and ra_dav is still much
> > slower than ra_svn.
>
> We don't do HTTP pipelining in ra_dav/mod_dav_svn right now (Neon
> doesn't handle it); we just use custom reports.
I believe what ghudson means is that we've interleaved the diffs
and/or file contents with the rest of the data we're getting back,
just as we would if we had gone with the original scheme + http
pipelining. So we've already got the kind of result we would have had
if neon had pipelining, and it's still slow.
Of course, there are certainly other reasons that ra_dav is slow (lets
make a million PROPFIND requests before we do anything! ok! how
about we base64 encode all binary data so it's bigger than it has to
be! great! etc.) so perhaps it's worth moving towards a custom
protocol that uses http, is built with the possibility of being http
cache friendly, but doesn't fall victim to the problems we currently
have with DAV.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 23 17:56:04 2005