Re: Performance benchmarks-1.5 results show significant regression in 1.6
On 03/31/2011 11:04 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> A user supplied me with results of running the benchmarks with 1.5,
> 1.6 and 1.7 on Windows. I have updated the wiki with those results.
> There was one area of the tests that I thought were interesting,
> because there is a massive regression in 1.6. The tests are with a
> working copy that has folders with a couple thousand icons in it. I
> mainly wanted to look for problems with a lot of files in one folder
> as people on users@ had been complaining. You can see those results
> Here are the average checkout/switch times:
> Checkout Switch
> 1.5: 0:30 0:18
> 1.6: 7:40 7:15
> 1.7 2:14 1:46
> So while 1.7 has made nice improvements over 1.6, there is still a
> huge regression. I would blame it on tree conflicts, but would this
> show up in a checkout (maybe because it shares code with update)?
> Might be something for someone to look at.
Well, I just made switch slower yesterday, and knowingly so. At least, I
made it do some extra up-front work to verify that the switch isn't
potentially unwanted. My changes won't affect the time spent doing the
actual work of the switch (and you can pass --ignore-ancestry if you know
what you're doing and skip my extra logic altogether).
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2011-03-31 17:14:02 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev