Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 12/21/05, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/05, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote the patch below as an exercise to do further libsvn_wc
>>> optimizations. Much of the machinery included can / will be reused in
>>> later optimization proposals.
>>>
>>> I did it now, because I think this would nicely fit into the
>>> 'libsvn_wc optimizing' 1.4 release.
>>>
>>> The patch is quite big and therefore, I'm posting before committing.
>>> It passes all tests on my system, but it changes one of the most used
>>> code paths in svn, so this is just to be on the safe side.
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear your comments!
>>>
>> I did some timings last night, backed by some help on irc about
>> testing performance in libsvn_wc.
>>
>> As it turns out, the change doesn't do much for the performance of the
>> testing framework. Most probably because the sleep_for_timestamps()
>> calls.
>>
> FYI: I have tryed subversion test suite with noop
> sleep_for_timestamps() -- it is twice faster than with it. (original
> svn test suite takes 1600 second on my laptop and 800 seconds with
> noop sleep_for_timestamps()
>
I bet you tested on NTFS. It'll work there because NTFS has
high-resolution (microsecond?) timestamps. It won't work on most Unix
filesystems, and will fail miserably on FAT.
I have an almost-working patch that adjusts the sleep time to what the
filesystem's timestamp resolution. The reason why it's almost-working is
that to do that, you need a handy working copy path; unfortunately, such
a thing isn't always available.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Dec 25 02:40:08 2005