# Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and 1.7b2

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:13:38 -0400

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ketting, Michael <
> michael.ketting_at_rubicon.eu> wrote:
>
>
>> Our repository is open source, so, in case you believe it helps with
>> benchmarking/finding the bottleneck, you're welcome to exporting the trunk (
>> https://svn.re-motion.org/svn/Remotion/trunk/) and creating a new
>> benchmark repository. Am I correct in my assumption that building a new
>> repository based only on the latest revision of the trunk would result in
>> similar performance figures given it appears to be a client related issue?
>>
>>
> I am doing some testing with your repository. I get similar times as you
> do when using your repository from a Windows client.
>
> However, every time I checkout your repository using 1.6.17 it runs for
> about 5 minutes but always ends in failure:
>
> svn: Your .svn/tmp directory may be missing or corrupt; run 'svn cleanup'
> and try again
> svn: Can't open file
> 'test1\Remotion\Data\UnitTests\DomainObjects\Core\Mapping\TestDomain\Validation\Integration\NotSupportedRelations\BidirectionalRelation_RelatedObjectTypeDoesNotMatchOppositeProperty_BelowInheritanceRoot\.svn\tmp\text-base\InvalidRelationClass1.cs.svn-base':
> The system cannot find the path specified.
>
>
I thought this might be an A/V problem, so I moved to a Win2k8 server that
does not have any A/V installed. I got the same problem which made me
realize it was the problem with max path length that has been addressed in
1.7. I re-ran the checkout using an absolute path so that 1.6 would run to
completion. I got some odd results in that it all ran really fast:

SVN 1.6.17 = 3:03
SVN 1.7-b3 = 2:40

So using 1.7 it was faster for me. I do not understand how these checkout
times got so fast though. I checked the size of the working copy and they
were each about 290MB, so I assume they are complete.

--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/