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

Re: [svnbench] Failed to build Revision: 1449572.

From: Neels Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:53:24 +0100

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:42:53 +0000
Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:

> Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote on Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:09:55 +0000:
> >> Neels Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 18:04:05 +0200
> >> > Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> /usr/local/serf-current was serf-1.2.x-r1707. I've installed
> >> >> 1.2.0 and updated the self-current symlink accordingly.
> >> >
> >> > No, the build has its own source trees. You know, it's one of
> >> > those "complete" builds that you do like so much ;)
> >>
> >> Which version of SQLite is used?
> >
> > 3.7.12.1

Yep, this ball in particular:
http://www.sqlite.org/sqlite-autoconf-3071201.tar.gz

> I was trying to see if that would explain why the charts show copy as
> a regression. The charts show copy performance fluctuating wildly
> however I think that may be a false alarm. Looking at the script the
> only copy that I can see is an URL-to-URL copy; a copy like that has
> nothing to do with working copy performance and may well be dominated
> by program startup costs.

Have you looked at the right-hand-side column? That shows the absolute
times in realtime. If the absolute times are fractions of a second I
wouldn't even consider the left-hand-side showing percentages. 'copy'
is one of those operations that are done very quickly while modifying
the file system, so they are subject to unproportional OS overhead...

If the benchmark has only url-to-url copies, that would be stupid. AFAIR
I explicitly had wc-wc copies to see the improvement in WC overhead by
having the pristines store...

Hmm, I took a look, and I indeed have a WC-WC copy -- but it's commented
out :/

_mod_funcs = (_mod, _add, _propmod, _propadd, )#_copy,) # _move, _del

Can't remember why I did that. I think I did have a reason though.
I'll take a look some time or other.

(Simply uncommenting now would change the test case and could make the
new runs too different from the old runs, decreasing quality of
comparison. So it needs some checking and decisions too.)

Thanks for spotting,
~Neels

Received on 2013-02-27 17:54:07 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.