Hey Geoff,
Thanks for your thoughts! And yes, it is appreciated.
People in the dev community focus on different things. Yes, there has
been some recent patches and focus around server performance. But
while that is happening, a large group of us are (and have been for a
while!) rewriting the working copy library. The end result of *that*
work should be a massive improvement in client-side speed.
Cheers,
-g
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:05, Geoff Rowell <geoff.rowell_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's great that the development team has been looking into 1.7
> performance, but I must admit I'm less interested in server
> performance than that of the client. My recent experiences with huge
> working copy folders has pointed out significant disparities in
> performance under different operating and file systems. Meaningful SVN
> performance testing should take into account the majority of popular
> operating and file systems.
>
> Specialized hardware is interesting when evaluating server
> performance, but it tends to skew your focus to problems not addressed
> by the hardware optimization. In truth, most server software users
> will probably install SVN 1.7 on the hardware they currently use.
>
> When evaluating client performance, tuned hardware is even less
> relevant. It's unlikely that users will upgrade their client systems
> just to take advantage of "sweet spots" in SVN performance -
> especially in this conservative economic environment.
>
> My corporate experience indicates that hardware upgrades are usually
> better tied to budgetary cycles and operating system upgrades.
>
> I hope you'll take this in the encouraging light it is offered in.
> --
> Geoff Rowell
> geoff.rowell_at_gmail.com
>
Received on 2010-05-14 16:23:32 CEST