--targets is just a way to get more of what would have been command-line
arguments into Subversion without tripping OS limitations on command-line
length or argument counts.
As for the original question, 'update' uses multiple RA sessions because we
don't allow RA sessions to span repositories, and the various paths passed
to svn_client_updateN() interfaces may all refer to working copy items that
came from various repositories. Additionally, the underlying update
mechanism is the svn_delta_editor_t interfaces -- a depth-first tree crawl.
With our current protocol, we'd have to do a significant amount of
preliminary calculations and transmit significantly more information across
the wire to "fake" a multi-target update using a single tree crawl. So
while WC-NG might reduce some of the I/O overhead that would be involved
ultimately if we were to take this route, there's far more logic in play
here than that solely of the working copy library.
Listman wrote:
>
> if you use the --targets option and pass in the list of objects via a
> file is this an issue?
>
> On Oct 31, 2008, at 3:52 PM- Oct 31, 2008, Miller, Eric wrote:
>
>>
>> A few quick questions on the upcoming WC rewrite.
>>
>> First - is there a spec for the proposed wc rewrite? Perhaps my
>> questions are already answered there.
>>
>> Second - I have a problem with the way the wc adm_crawler is currently
>> implemented in that it finishes the reporter.
>> In the case of the wc update routines, this effectively causes a new
>> connection to the repository to be created for every path given to the
>> client.
>> For a large number of input paths this overhead becomes the dominant
>> factor in update times which may be orders of magnitude longer than if
>> done over a single connection.
>> Will the wc rewrite address this issue and allow the update of
>> multiple wc paths using a single RA connection?
>>
>> Third - I am concerned about maintaining multi-user access with the
>> new WC model. Is the current POR to lock the entire WC for write
>> operations? If so, this could have some very negative consequences in
>> our environment.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Eric
>>
>
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-11-03 21:59:20 CET