as I promised, I'm going to conduct some in-depth
analysis and comprehensive SVN performance testing.
That is very time-consuming process.
However, it seems that many people have incorrect
or outdated ideas about the current state of affairs.
To add a bit more substance to the discussion, I like
to present some preliminary data and not to wait
until I collected all data I intend to.
Side note: Maybe, these numbers make it clearer why
my patches should be committed after review.
* SVN servers tend to be CPU-limited
(we already observed that problem @ our company
with SVN 1.4)
* packed repositories are ~20% faster than non-packed,
* optimal file cache size is roughly /trunk size
(plus branch diffs, but that is yet to be quantified)
* "cold" I/O from a low-latency source takes 2 .. 3 times
as long as from cached data
* a fully patched 1.7 server is twice as fast as 1.6.9
"Export" has been chosen to eliminate problems
with client-side w/c performance.
Please note that all measurements were taken in
a true client/server setup. You can achieve similar
performance in low-latency broad-band networks.
Received on 2010-05-12 20:08:37 CEST