On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 05:36, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 15:17, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 22:07, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:34, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>>>>...
>>>> It seems I found reason why ra_serf is slower than ra_neon. ra_serf
>>>> sends CHECKOUT request for _each_ folder and file that being imported,
>>>> while ra_neon perform it only for root directory. Maybe DAV experts
>>>> can answer which behavior is correct: should WebDAV client CHECKOUT
>>>> each resource being modified or it's fine to CHECKOUT only the root of
>>>> commit operation?
>>>
>>> There is no other WebDAV server to talk to, besides our own. That is
>>> one of the primary rationales behind the HTTPv2 effort: recognizing
>>> reality, rather than living in an theoretical world.
>>>
>>> Thus, if Neon's approach works with our server, then ra_serf can go
>>> ahead and use that approach, too.
>>>
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> My investigations was wrong: actually ra_neon doesn't send CHECKOUT
>> request only for sub-directories and file of directories being added
>> in the same commit. We still have to CHECKOUT directories when using
>> HTTPv1 to provide baseline.
>>
>> Anyway I've implemented ra_neon's approach in r1079967.
>
> Very cool! And from John's tests, it looks like that worked.
>
> The change looks pretty simple. Maybe it could be backported to 1.6?
>
I don't think that this change should be backported due our policy.
It's just small optimization. And I think that most performance
improvement comes from fix in serf, not mine change in ra_serf.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2011-03-10 07:33:26 CET