On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> However, looking at Julian's binary blame algorithm, I can't help but
>> wonder why this binary structure couldn't be calculated on the server
>> just as well. This would save a lot of network roundtrips (5999 in my
>> case :-)). Like I said, network is not an issue in our setup, but I
>> appreciate that there are other environments out there.
>
> Calculating and doing work like this on the server would not scale well.
Oh, of course. I hadn't thought about that. That seems like a very good reason.
Thinking more about this, I'm not sure that it *has* to be like that.
As I commented in the other thread: I think it all depends on how
efficient the algorithm is. Anyway, it's way too early to tell. We'll
see ...
> If you haven't, you should review some of the old threads on speeding
> up blame. Dan Berlin made a lot of improvements in the SVN 1.2
> timeframe and learned a lot about what does NOT speed it up.
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-02/0275.shtml
>
> You should really search around for all of the threads he commented on
> to get the complete picture. I think he also provided ideas on what
> more could potentially be done in the future. Such as this one that I
> do not recall was ever done.
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-09/0459.shtml
>
> Maybe the thread will explain why.
Thanks a lot for these pointers. I'll certainly dig in to them.
--
Johan
Received on 2010-03-23 13:18:55 CET