Re: Memory leak with 1.6.x clients
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 02:28:17PM -0500, kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote on 05/29/2009 02:12:25 PM:
> > Mark Phippard wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> This makes the commit I/O bound and slows it down quite a bit -- the
> > >> total number of failed attempts being ((N(N+1)/2)-1) -- I'll look
> > >> speeding this up...
> > >
> > > This sounds horrid. I think we've had reports about commit being much
> > > slower in 1.6 too. And getting slower as the number of files goes up.
> > >
> > > Is this fixable?
> > We could use tempfile names that match the name of the to-be-committed
> > instead of having them all be generic tempfile.N type names. That would
> > reduce name clashes.
> Do we already have a hash value for the file? Could we just stringify
> it? That would make it even less likely to clash, right?
I've been wondering for some time why we don't use unpredictable
names for tempfiles. That would also solve this problem.
Received on 2009-05-29 22:25:47 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev