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
1.6.16 from localhost trunk server (10 iterations)
trunk from localhost trunk server (10 iterations)
So, neon and serf retain their speeds relative to each other...
John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot.
http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake
Received on 2011-03-10 17:23:12 CET