Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be> wrote:
>> Stefan Küng wrote:
>>> Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>>>> Stefan Küng wrote:
>>> I guess many people will get really annoyed/angry with the 1.5 release of
>>> Subversion. I've ran some tests with different builds, all tests done with
>>> the command line:
>>> svn merge -r11761:11762
>>> http://tortoiosesvn.tigris.org/svn/tortoisesvn/branches/1.4.x --dry-run
>>> (for the 1.5 clients, I also added '--accept postpone' to the command
>>> Here are my results:
>>> my build from 1.5.x branch, built with VS2008:
>>> 5:17 .. 5:34
>>> 1.5.0-RC9 from open.collab.net:
>>> 2:22 .. 2:50
>>> 1.4.6 client:
>>> 0:12 .. 0:15
> Bah! That's awfull. IMHO it could be showstopper of 1.5.x :(
>>> * Serf is twice as fast as neon for merges, but only if IPv6 support is
>> I did a merge from a range of revisions of svn /trunk to a svn 1.5 working
>> copy with a trunk svn and ra_serf. This is the result:
>> Nr. of opened sessions: 7
>> Nr. of reports sent to the server: 149
>> Nr. of opened sockets: 241
>> This was a debug build, so the total time is not really important.
>> The difference in nr. of reports and nr. of sockets is the fact that ra_serf
>> opens more than one socket per report, in order to send multiple requests
>> in parallel.
>> Anyway, no less than 241 sockets is way to high. It should be possible to
>> reuse those sockets more, but this should be solved in the ra layers. I'll
>> have a look at ra_serf to see what we can do.
> Reusing sockets in ra layers is bad idea. It's will be very implicit
> behavior, so problem will just hide one more level deeper.
If the merge code can be optimized to make less ra calls, sure, that's
better. But in the case that those 149 merge/update reports are really
needed, I don't see a reason why we cannot reuse earlier idle
connections in the ra_serf library. Isn't one of the principles of serf
to allow maximum number of requests over a minimum number of sockets?
> I've looked to merge.c code and I've shocked: we create many ra
> sessions when merging. This is source of all slowdowns. And also there
> is no comments why we doing so. Could someone explain why we creating
> new sessions instead of reusing?
Did you look at the numbers I got from my test case? Only 7 sessions,
and all of those were created at the start of the merge. So either you
misinterpreted the code or my code tracing was incorrect. I don't know
the merge code well enough to know who's right or wrong.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-15 18:38:52 CEST