On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
<stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
>> <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
...
>> > Quite a number of reasons:
>> >
>> > * easy setup
>> > * minimal overhead (I want to get as close to measuring pure
>> > FS layer performance as possible)
>> > * easy to debug and profile
>>
>> I get that for development purposes, but I would personally like to
>> see that the caching etc. is yielding benefits when HTTP is used.
>
>
> Apache should only add constant overhead, i.e. the
> absolute savings should be roughly the same. Once
> the cache-server branch is finished, the difference
> in cache efficiency & effect between svnserve and
> Apache should be gone.
I guess the question is mainly: how much of the caching benefit will
be visible to the end-user with mod_dav_svn? Or will it perhaps be
"hidden" by overhead of HTTPv2 etc ...?
In the first place in a fast LAN (that might be something you can test
relatively easily), but secondary also in a WAN ... how much
performance improvement remains when executing particular operations
...
--
Johan
Received on 2013-02-21 12:07:04 CET