[straying from original topic; changed subject]
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 13:02, <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com> wrote:
>> Not saying it shouldn't be fixed... just saying that I'm unsure that
>> it is a *release-blocker*. Or more precisely, that it is an issue that
>> would cause serf to no longer be the default.
> I guess I would consider a large increase in memory use a release
> blocker/enough to make serf no longer the default. In my experience,
> 10's of thousands of files is no longer a "large" test case.
Sure... and that's why I'm still unsure. It seems kind of an edge
case, but then again I don't know what we really want to call
> Somewhat off-topic, but there was also previous concern that
> the multiple connections that serf uses might overly stress some
> larger servers. Do we have any idea how many additional connections
> a typical server would see? For example, if I see 1000 concurrent
> connections to a server with neon, will I need to support 10000 shorter
> connections with serf? (The 10x I chose is purely arbitrary and
> not based upon any knowledge of the actual differences...)
In certain cases (eg. checkout/update) ra_serf tends to use 4
connections rather than 1, so there won't be a major connection
increase on the server. In many cases, ra_serf just sticks to a single
connection (ie. 'svn log') when it doesn't have a bunch of various
content to fetch.
Also, note that the multiple connections actually can *help* the
server. Mark noticed a much smoother load profile on the server since
multiple CPU cores can come into play, once you have multiple active
connections. In the Neon single-connection case, one cpu has to build
the entire response.
Received on 2011-07-20 19:33:16 CEST