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

RE: Locking strategy (= Windows wc-update performance down the drain)

From: Bert Huijben <rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:26:01 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 4:18 PM
> To: 'Bert Huijben'; dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: RE: Locking strategy (= Windows wc-update performance down the
> drain)
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bert Huijben [mailto:rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net]
> > Sent: dinsdag 10 februari 2009 15:15
> > To: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: Locking strategy (= Windows wc-update performance down the
> > drain)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I found the single explanation on why 'svn update' is slow on
> Windows,
> > while it is fast on many other operating systems.

(Time in UTC+1, today)

20:03 <@Bert> gstein: Hi... Did you see my mail on locking?
20:04 <@gstein> no. tho saw your IRC to read it.
20:06 <@Bert> gstein: Creating a lock file in every directory really breaks
performance on Windows :(.. I suggested
another file next to it for a recursive lock.. and then search for both down
and for the recursive one up
too when locking... And I hoped to see your reaction (and maybe good/better
suggestions) before
implementing it :)
20:07 <@gstein> I wouldn't want to try that for 1.6
20:07 <@gstein> 1.6 is *in the can*
20:07 <@gstein> and 1.7 shouldn't have lock files
20:09 <@gstein> that lock file has been there for years,
20:09 <@gstein> I wouldn't want to hold 1.6 to remove it
20:10 <@Bert> *nod*.. It shouldn't be that hard to implement.. but it needs
carefull reviews
20:10 <@gstein> agreed,
20:10 <@gstein> and that "careful review" is the scary part,
20:10 <@gstein> for something *right before* we branch
20:11 <@gstein> for something that has been in there for years,
20:11 <@gstein> I can't see changing it for 1.6
20:11 <@gstein> especially when we're gonna just rip it out anywyas
<snip />
20:13 <@Bert> gstein: That is the big problem.. but an 80-90% speed increase
on big workingcopy updates is something
many users would love to have.. (But switching a locking strategy must be in
all clients of a specific
workingcopy format version; or none at all)
20:14 <@gstein> Bert: I understand, but just don't agree with doing it at
this time
20:14 <@gstein> target cut for 1.6 was November,
20:14 <@gstein> we're in February
20:16 <@jerenkrantz> 1.6 is too late as-is.
20:16 <@jerenkrantz> hwright needs to just do it. =)
20:16 <@hwright> jerenkrantz: good call
20:16 <@jerenkrantz> (me happily volunteers someone else!)
20:16 -!- hwright changed the topic of #svn-dev to: Development of
Subversion | User questions in #svn please | 1.6.x
          branches in 30 minutes

(Note that this topic was changed a few minutes later, or the branch should
be there :)


Received on 2009-02-10 21:26:29 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.