On 10/03/11 15:50, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 18:44, John Beranek <john_at_redux.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/03/11 14:31, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 6:24 AM, John Beranek <john_at_redux.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> OK, so I:
>>>> * Changed my benchmark took to allow the test to be reported N times,
>>>> and moved to microsecond timers.
>>>> * Set up a fresh repository on a 1.6.15 server, with no post-commit
>>>> So, with 10 iterations:
>>>> ra_neon: 16.01
>>>> ra_serf: 15.94
>>> Having only tangentially followed this thread, I've got a couple of questions:
>>> * Do the current subversion+serf fixes solve the the large checkout
>>> time problem people have been seeing on trunk?
>>> * What other scenarios should we be timing/testing?
>>> John, you've been a great help in identifying and testing this. Any
>>> chance you could run similar timing comparisons on other Subversion
>>> operations and report the results? :)
>> OK, well, my script has now been checked in to:
>> Documentation/usage information isn't great (OK, non-existant) yet, but
>> I'll work on this.
>> I've added a checkout test, and here are my results:
>> 1.6.16, 10 iterations, from a localhost trunk(r1080029) server to a
>> local disc:
>> ra_neon: 4.49
>> ra_serf: 5.39
>> trunk(r1080029), 10 iterations, from a localhost trunk(r1080029) server
>> to a local disc:
>> ra_neon: 14.94
>> ra_serf: 15.76
> Hi John,
> It better to separate network layer tests from WC layer. The following
> operations are mostly depends on network layer and server performance:
> 1. svn ls / svn ls -R
> 2. svn export
> 3. svn log
Hmm, OK, but is 'export' truly not WC dependent??
John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot.
http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake
Received on 2011-03-10 16:58:30 CET