[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: wc_db API discussion

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:41:50 -0500

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we have to get this work done soon. †We cannot release with
>> performance like it is. †How do we define the scope of the work that
>> needs to be done so that we can divide and conquer and get these
>> changes in place?
> It sounds like we should codify what our performance targets are.
> What are the operations (and test cases?) that are important to us? †-- justin

I agree that we will have to codify this.

> Is it acceptable if 1.7 is as fast as 1.6? †Should it be faster?
> Could we accept a slowdown for 1.7 as long as we know how we can get
> it on par (or faster) for 1.8?

I think it should be faster overall. Like Ivan, I think status and
update on large working copies are areas where I would like to see
show significant improvements.

I can live with some operations being comparable to 1.6. I do not
think we can accept any major regressions in performance. It looks
like checkout is currently a major regression (but we should try to
codify that). It definitely looks like NFS mounted working copies is
a major regression. I do not think we can ship without getting those
back to 1.6 levels.

CPU usage is also way higher which might yield regressions that are
harder for us to quantify with benchmarks. I think we can only keep
an eye on that and hope it comes down as we make improvements to
overall performance.

Mark Phippard
Received on 2011-03-12 19:42:21 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.