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

Re: server impact (was: 1.7.0-beta2 this afternoon)

From: <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 12:54:50 -0500

Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote on 07/20/2011 12:32:42 PM:
> > 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.

Good info. Thanks for the details. Exactly what I wanted!

> 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.

Luckily(?) I normally see number of concurrent requests > number of cores,
but I can definitely see that things should improve for individual
users on lighter loaded systems due to the added concurrency.

Kevin R.
Received on 2011-07-20 19:55:29 CEST

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