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

Re: serf in 1.8

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:39:04 -0500

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
> Greg Stein wrote on Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 19:01:25 -0500:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Philip Martin
> > <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > >...
> > > Another concern is the increased server logging due to the large
> > > increase in the number of requests. A 1.8 server does better than older
> > > servers, about 50% fewer requests on checkout, but there is still a big
> > > increase over neon. No solution other than "it happens".
> >
> > You keep mentioning this. But what is the problem? "More logs" is too
> > subjective to quality as a concern/problem.
> >
> > In October, svn.apache.org generated about 900M of logs(*). Is that a
> > problem? I wouldn't think so. At that rate, a simple 1T drive could
> > hold over 83 years of logs. Are there installations busier than
>
> How many years would those 1TB disks last for if all neon clients were
> converted to serf?

Dunno what the factor is. Maybe 10 years. Is that worrisome? I say
"nope", thus my query to Philip on why there is any concern about logs
storage.

Shoot. My *laptop* can store decades of logs of Apache traffic. I'm
just not seeing an issue. (not to mention simple log rotation for
those who don't need a decade+ of log data)

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2012-11-13 02:39:37 CET

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