ssh neels_at_svn-qavm.apache.org
Use the ssh key you use for people.apache.org. (And please add it to
svn in the designated location; see pmc/machines/notes/ for the URL.)
Daniel
Neels Hofmeyr wrote on Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 02:38:49 +0100:
> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 20:27 +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > Also instead of nebulous handwaving about "performance is bad", it
> > > would be nice to have actually datasets and actual numbers. We have a
> > > VM at the ASF which could be used for hosting a set of benchmarking
> > > data; we just need somebody to put together the data and write the
> > > scripts which run the benchmarks.
> >
> > I'll ask Neels about running his set of performance tests on the VM
> > (see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-09/0526.shtml).
>
> Wow, looking back at my own results, it seems so far away. Man, it's
> slowly getting half a year since I first ran the benchmark.
>
> If you have instructions for me to set up my humble tests on some
> machine, I might be tempted to cook up some digest reporting on top of
> it. The test script itself might benefit from a review, though.
>
> If we run it on some idling box somewhere, we could simply increase the
> extent of the test from 4x4 dir levels to a few more (keeping an eye on
> exponential growth so it takes less than a day to run...).
>
> I'm not sure if it's necessary to even care about other runs than
> ra_local, since we're testing libsvn_wc performance, right? ra_local
> should be where libsvn_wc perf loss is the most visible.
>
> I still have that article about svn 1.7 waiting unreleased and growing a
> beard. I don't want to print an article that has to say "svn 1.7 grew
> slower than 1.6", so I'd want 1.7 to be same speed as 1.6 for a release.
> We can already brag about massive memory usage improvement with deep
> WCs. If we can just skip having to say "BUT it's slower in many common
> cases", that'd be great.
Received on 2011-02-09 05:49:27 CET