On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:51 PM- Oct 22, 2008, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Listman wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 2008, at 7:21 PM- Oct 22, 2008, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Listman wrote:
>>>> if rep-sharing is a performance drain then please make it optional.
>>>> Actually anything that is going to slow us should be optional
>>>> "svn is slow" rant yet again..)
>>> So, does this mean that we shouldn't be storing deltas *at all* on
>>> but rather always storing the full text for every revision? One of
>>> the benefits
>>> of Subversion over CVS in the bad ol' days was that we treated every
>>> file as
>>> just a binary blob, and did deltification on every object. I doubt
>>> many people
>>> want to sacrifice deltificiation for lower server CPU.
>> actually i don't care about the delta's to be honest. i'd like to see
>> that an option too.
>> that would actually be awesome..
> Patches welcome.
>>> This leads me to a more general question that seems to be coming
>>> to a
>>> head: what
>>> use cases should Subversion be optimized for? Please pardon the
>>> collection of thoughts that follows as I attempt to explore this
>>> Subversion is used in so many more places than we ever dreamed it
>>> would, and
>>> each has their own needs. Some prefer economy of disk over CPU
>>> while others don't care about CPU, but require small network
>>> turnaround times.
>>> Other users trust us to ship with reasonable defaults, and will just
>>> use those
>>> whatever they be. Subversion can not, and should not, be all things
>>> to all people.
>>> Adding new features usually requires a performance hit. Generally
>>> though, the
>>> capability of the hardware increases to more than make up for
>>> we add. We've traditionally been pretty conservative, and running
>>> 1.0 on
>>> hardware of that time is definitely slower than running 1.5 on
>>> I doubt the same can be said of many other projects.
>>> Moore's "Law" is not a panacea for bad software, and I'm not
>>> suggesting we be
>>> lazy in our coding practices, but I think that we can reasonably
>>> compromises when advancing the state of Subversion. No one is
>>> to upgrade, and users are free to build customized versions of the
>>> which make different compromises than the one we ship.
>>> (The one caution I *would* make, though, is that we don't want to
>>> be too
>>> customizable. Doing so adds can easily lead to spaghetti-ified
>>> and user
>>> confusion. As much as users enjoy tweaking knobs, at the end of the
>>> day, most
>>> just want something that works out-of-the-box, and our default
>>> experience should
>>> be a positive one.)
>>> Anyway, if people want to rip the rep-sharing stuff out, go
>>> ahead. If
>>> fsfs-packing should disappear, so be it. However, there is a
>>> segment of our userbase who wants (and arguably needs) these types
>>> just as there others who care about massive concurrency and server
>>> Let's not leave them hanging high-and-dry.
>> i'm sure some folks find it useful, so why not just make it an
>> why force these
>> performance draining features down the throats of users that are
>> with slowness issues...
> No one is forcing anything down anybody's throat. Just because
> users choose to
> upgrade to a newer version of a piece of software they receive for
> free does
> *not* mean new features are being forced upon them.
>> please do a google for "slow svn" and see what the users are saying
>> this issue
>> (word of warning, its a little ugly). features are great and svn
>> certainly has some
>> good ones, but the main issue with svn today is performance.
> Again, patches welcome
you have to face your dragons before you can defeat them - all i'm
trying to keep people aware of the real issues that svn users face
please don't get defensive when we have this kind of discussion, this
how we're going to make Subversion best in class..
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-23 05:13:14 CEST