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

Re: Status of ra_serf?

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 15:39:47 +0100

Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> [2] On a Solaris build machine @work (Solaris 10 on x86 on ESX, with
>> 1.6.17 client, 1.5.4 server (sorry, old stuff)), most interactions
>> with the svn server are a lot faster when using serf than with neon.
>> Things like ls, cat, log, mergeinfo, ... are all a lot faster (like
>> 150ms vs. 900ms).
> That's true: ra_serf is significantly faster when working with pre-1.7
> servers because it have DAV baseline cache (see r1080245 and
> subversion/libsvn_ra_serf/blncache.c). It dramatically reduce number
> of PROPFIND requests when working with pre-1.7 servers. But it's not
> used when server is HTTPv2 capable. That's why I didn't ported this
> cache to ra_neon, while it's should be easily possible.

I'm confused. You say serf/v1 is faster because of the baseline cache,
and that the cache is not used by serf/v2. Does that mean serf/v1 is
faster than neon/v1 or that serf/v1 is faster than serf/v2?

I hope you mean that serf/v1 is faster than neon/v1 and that serf/v2 is
also fast because the v2 protocol means the cache is unneeded. How does
serf/v2 compare to neon/v2?

-- 
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com
Received on 2012-05-04 16:40:25 CEST

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