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

Re: [DISCUSS] delete ra_neon

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 00:47:07 +0400

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 12:35 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 04:26 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>>> On 05/17/2012 11:45 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On May 17, 2012 10:27 AM, "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net
>>>> <mailto:cmpilato_at_collab.net>> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> No, I haven't yet taken a crack at removing the HEAD request.  That will
>>>>> significantly help the fetch-from-pristine-cache situation, but this is a
>>>>> parallel line of optimization that needs to occur.
>>>>
>>>> Yup. Doable; not worried about it. Along with Depth:1 PROPFINDs. I'd like to
>>>> try the latter before patching. From your test, we see the checkout goes
>>>> from 1915 down to 203 PROPFINDs. I can make that happen against unpatched
>>>> servers.
>>>
>>> Yup, agreed that would make sense.  Those 203 PROPFINDs would be bigger, but
>>> as I think we've established, the real cost here is in the turnaround, not
>>> the processing of any one request/response.
>>>
>> May be stupid question: why do we need these 203 PROPFINDs for each directory?
>
> It's not 203 PROPFINDs per directory.  It's one PROPFIND per directory (at
> depth:1 ... gets all the props for that directory and its immediate children).
>
I meant one PROPFIND per directory. I didn't see where PROPFIND with
"1" depth is created. It used only in svn_ra_serf__get_dir() but not
in update driver code.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2012-05-17 22:47:58 CEST

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