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

Re: Fresh checkout vs 'svn upgrade': How good is good enough?

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:51:16 -0400

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:30 PM, Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Running an upgrade of a trunk WC on my machine under xperf takes
> 00:03:46.351 elapsed and 11.44s CPU time using my primary drive (320
> GB, SATA-II, 7200 rpm, 16 MB Cache, NTFS).  Subversion spends 50s
> total disk service time (46.8s of that is read service time).
> I've defragmented this disk, real time virus scanning is disabled,
> TSVN is currently not installed so no overhead from TSVNCache,
> compression is turned off, I'm using Win 7 Home Premium so there is no
> option to use encryption, content indexing is turned off,
> write-caching is enabled, write-cache buffer flushing is disabled, 8.3
> filename creation is turned off, and last access timestamp is
> disabled.
> Are any Windows users out there seeing similar performance with 'svn
> upgrade' or have any suggestions for further optimizing Win 7 disk
> performance?
> As I detailed in my earlier response to Julian, upgrading a 2GB
> working copy on my box took close to 4 hours!  I'm fine if this poor
> performance is simply something to do with my particular configuration
> (or flaky disk), but if this is what Windows users in general have to
> look forward too we might have a problem.

Do we obtain and release a lot of those old-style SVN WC "locks". We
know those are really slow on Windows so if we are
creating/releasing/creating/releasing these locks that might explain

Mark Phippard
Received on 2011-06-13 21:51:48 CEST

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.