RE: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!
From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 09:43:13 +0000
The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
In what way are you then comparing the backends?
You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching.
I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we should do it for the
Bert
Sent from Windows Mail
*From:* Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
Hey there,
So, I did some measurement based with a mirror of the boost repository.
Tests were run on 64 bit Ubuntu 12.10 with BDB 5.1. Repository configs,
(1): --fs-type bdb --bdb-txn-nosync; auto log removal implied
Repository sizes (BDB is ~4GB) don't look too bad but FSFS is still
(1) : (2) : (3)
Now some runtime numbers. svnadmin tests were run with '-M 4000' cache
(1): (2) : (3) performance (inverted runtime)
Client test were run with svn-bench against svnserve ('--cache-revprops yes
(1): (2) : (3) performance (inverted runtime)
Given these numbers, merge operations are probably also much slower with
-- Stefan^2.
-- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: * http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download *Received on 2013-01-06 10:43:52 CET |
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.