On 05.01.2012 01:35, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 19:08:41 -0500:
>> (*) I'd be interested in what they are doing. Is this a use case we might
>> see elsewhere? Or is this something silly they are doing, that would not be
>> seen elsewhere?
> They use the Apache CMS to manage their site[2,3]. Some changes (for
> example r1227057) cause a site-wide rebuild; for example, the
> aforementioned r1227057 yielded r801653, which touches 19754 files
> (according to 'svn log -qv' on svn.eu).
That is nothing that should stress SVN too much.
After all, I did merges of that size with 1.4.
The critical part of the CMS use-case would be
the number of directories within the working copy
and the number of files touched (that need to be
read to check for actual changes).
As a data point: KDE /trunk_at_r1mio is 9.7GB
(>300k files in <100k folders). With a tuned svn://
implementation, I get an export within 17 seconds(!)
- 4 times in parallel [*]. More clients will ultimately
cause my machine to saturate at 6GB/sec sustained
svn: traffic over localhost.
So, we should really seek to optimize the working
copy implementation to support large working copies.
[*] The client side is an "empty" export command
that will simply accept any data coming from the server.
Received on 2012-01-09 03:33:27 CET