[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: <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:45:31 -0600

> Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > 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
> >> servers, about 50% fewer requests on checkout, but there is still a
> >> 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
> > svn.a.o? Sure. Can they afford 1T drives? If they're running at that
> > rate, then you bet.
> A neon checkout of Subversion adds 6 lines to access.log while a serf
> checkout adds 4183 lines, that's 3 orders of magnitude. A server that
> previously had space for 1 year of logs may now fill the space in less
> than 1 day. Actively maintained sites are probably OK. I'm worried
> about less actively maintained servers that need no day-to-day attention
> because they "just work", such servers may stop working and require
> reconfiguration.
> Maybe it's not a problem, I'm not an expert on server admin.

*one* of my servers currently logs around 10GB per week with neon
only access. I'd probably have to change from rotating logs
weekly to rotating logs hourly! Disabling logging is not an option.

Kevin R.
Received on 2012-11-13 16:46:08 CET

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