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

RE: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and 1.7b2

From: Ketting, Michael <michael.ketting_at_rubicon.eu>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:53:27 +0000

Hello Johen!

Yes, I'm running them on a local disk.

Good point about the AV software. Had MS Forefront running. Redid my own checkout tests with the directory excluded but got the same results.
Then I tried to rerun the svn benchmark, but I can't get them to run, now:
I set my path to the svn-binaries folder and started the tests the same as I did before (or apparently, not) but I only get the following stacktrace (plus the same for the other commands in the test)

$ svn --version -q
Error running SVN command
java.lang.NullPointerException
        at com.devdaily.system.SystemCommandExecutor.getStandardOutputFromCommand(SystemCommandExecutor.java:134)
        at com.collabnet.subversion.benchmark.command.SVNCommand.run(SVNCommand.java:69)
        at com.collabnet.subversion.benchmark.command.SVNCommand.runAndReturnOutput(SVNCommand.java:52)
        at com.collabnet.subversion.benchmark.test.AbstractTest.setup(AbstractTest.java:74)
        at com.collabnet.subversion.benchmark.test.AbstractTest.run(AbstractTest.java:128)
        at com.collabnet.subversion.benchmark.RunTests.run(RunTests.java:73)
        at com.collabnet.subversion.benchmark.RunTests.main(RunTests.java:154)

And yes, actually running the svn version command on the command line works, so the PATH is set correctly. Any idea/suggestions what I might be doing wrong? Must be something obvious but since the stacktrace isn't helping ...

Regards, Michael
________________________________________
From: Johan Corveleyn [jcorvel_at_gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 21:31
To: Ketting, Michael
Cc: Mark Phippard; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and 1.7b2

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ketting, Michael
> <michael.ketting_at_rubicon.eu> wrote:
>>
>> Here're the test results for the basic merge repository:
>>
>> Subversion 1.7.0 Beta 3, binaries from collabnet
>> Basic Tests:
>> | 1.7.0-beta3 | rNNNNNNNN | 0:54.539 | 0:47.774 | 0:00.214 | 0:00.075 |
>> 0:00.101 | 0:01.187 | 0:01.365
>>
>> Subversion 1.6.17, binaries from VisualSVN
>>
>> Basic Tests:
>> | 1.6.17 | rNNNNNNNN | 0:42.548 | 0:39.758 | 0:16.504 | 0:00.257 |
>> 0:00.105 | 0:00.637 | 0:02.445
>
> We get pretty different results on these tests (which are just using the
> Subversion code base for an example in the tests). I used a 1.7 server so
> my 1.7 client was able to benefit from the HTTPv2 protocol. I am re-running
> my 1.7 tests with a 1.6 server and will update you when they are done.

Michael,

Just a thought: do you have any anti-virus or other background
scanning software active on the client during these tests? If so,
could you try to rerun the tests without it? It's conceivable that
some types of anti-virus have more impact on 1.7 than they do on 1.6.

And just to reassure: the tests are run on a local hard disk right?

--
Johan
Received on 2011-08-10 23:53:58 CEST

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