[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn edit

From: Philipp Marek <philipp.marek_at_emerion.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:02:21 +0100

On Tuesday, 28. October 2008, Harvey, Edward wrote:
> I'm not sure what you mean by "with full caches" or "keep access more
> local" but I do know this - I created a similar python script to walk a
> tree.
> With cold cache, local disk, python walking the tree on 100,000
> files takes approx 10 sec With cold cache, local disk, "svn stat" on 17,000
> files (50,000 including .svn dirs) takes approx 4 mins With cold cache,
> local disk, "git status" on 17,000 files (30,000 including .git dirs) takes
> approx 2 mins Perforce is able to do this is zero time. (a few ms)
In case anybody's interested, here are some performance numbers for FSVS -
which walks the whole tree, too.

Example: ~22K files, notebook (slow harddisk) with 1.6GHz CPU, cold cache,
entries known (so a checkout, and not a completely new import); FSVS uses no
.svn dirs:

        dolly:/example# find . | wc -l
# Clear cache
        dolly:/example# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
# fsvs with cold cache, but using a sorted list of existing entries -
# harddisk doesn't need to seek as much
        dolly:/example# time fsvs st > /dev/null

        real 0m6.000s
        user 0m0.240s
        sys 0m0.372s

(This was taken from the documentation at

If someone wants to know numbers for some "enterprise" machines (raid), I can
provide them, too.



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-29 09:02:45 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.