On 21.02.2013 12:06, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> 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
> ...
This kind of question is IMO too simplistic. The real question is, will
500 simultaneous users see a difference? And I think the only reliable
way to get the answer is to find 500 simultaneous users first. :)
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Received on 2013-02-21 12:41:16 CET