My benchmarks show that SVN can be 5X faster than DAV-neon for diff.
It's pretty easy to test. You should be able to try the SVN protocol
just by changing URLS (assuming svnserve is running for the repository
and access is set up).
It's bit harder is to switch between neon and serf at run time
(requires running trunk and configured with both). The code is
something like:
servers = apr_hash_get(ctx->config, SVN_CONFIG_CATEGORY_SERVERS,
APR_HASH_KEY_STRING);
svn_config_set(servers, SVN_CONFIG_SECTION_GLOBAL,
SVN_CONFIG_OPTION_HTTP_LIBRARY, "serf");
100 files is pretty typical. Things get a lot slower as you get to
thousands of files.
-Dan C
On 10/22/07, Matthias Junker <matthias.junker@students.unibe.ch> wrote:
> DAV-neon. Then you think this causes a lot of the slow-down?
>
> the size of the repository varies, but it should be able to deal with
> repositories with large amounts of files.
>
> the repository i ran the performance test on was rather small. only
> ~50-100 files.
>
> as far as i saw, svn_sleep_for_timestamps is only used in checkout,
> cleanup, commit, copy, diff, revert, switch and update.
> since i only use diff, this might be worth to consider, but the other
> commands don't concern me.
>
> Matt
>
>
> > He may also be running afoul of svn_sleep_for_timestamps. Using the RA
> > API would avoid that penalty.
> >
> > On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 10:42 -0700, Dan Christian wrote:
> >
> >> What access protocol are you using?
> >>
> >> DAV-neon is slowest, SVN is fastest, DAV-serf is in between.
> >> Encryption slows things down even more.
> >>
> >> How big are the queries?
> >>
> >> Large file and directories counts will reduce performance.
> >>
> >> -Dan C
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 22 20:26:14 2007