Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> There is one issue that I want to raise that I do not think is an
> outlier. I was expecting HTTPv2 to yield significant improvements,
> and so I stopped the Apache server after each test so I could grab its
> logs. I wanted to be able to show how much the HTTP traffic was
> reduced. I have not done this yet, but for Serf it looks like the
> logs were bigger. The issue I want to raise though is about Serf in
> general. Running these benchmarks with Neon yields an Access log of
> about 102KB and a Subversion log of about 3KB. Running the benchmarks
> with Serf yields an Access log over 12MB and a Subversion log over 5
> MB.
Yes, we discussed this earlier this month. Serf makes more requests
than neon for checkout/export/update, a GET and PROPFIND per file versus
a single custom REQUEST. My measurements using Subversion trunk as a
dataset showed serf slightly faster than neon. John's measurements with
part of the Linux source tree showed serf slower than neon. When I
switched to his dataset I got the same result as he did. The obvious
difference between the datasets is that his was about half the size of
mine but had about twice as many files. So the serf approach of making
lots of requests appears to be less efficient on lots of small files.
--
Philip
Received on 2011-03-29 00:15:33 CEST