On 19 June 2014 12:01, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Here the results of my measurements taken over the last
> couple of days.
> null-export of source code from spinning disk, NTFS Linux:
> * packed f6 4x as fast as non-packed f6
> * packed f7 20x as fast as non-packed f7
> * packed f7 4x as fast as than packed f6
> * non-packed f6 1.4x as fast as non-packed f7
> -> you want f7 and you want packing
> null-log -v -g from spinning disk, NTFS Linux:
> * packed f7 6x as fast as packed f6
> (non-packed not measured; very likely similar factors as above)
> null-export of source code from spinning disk, NTFS Windows:
> * packed f7 2.5x as fast as packed f6
> (limited by USB2)
> Setup details:
> Repository: freebsd-base, r264989 (almost worst case
> of non-packed latest shard in packed repositories), ~3GB,
> dirs deltified.
> Server: svnserve 4G (Linux) / 1G (Windows) cache,
> -c 0, revprops cached
Am I understand properly that all your performance tests are performed
for svnserve only and with enormous cache size?
Have you performed any tests for HTTP servers? Have you performed any
tests with default cache size (that most of the users have)?
It is unusual to have a 4GB cache for 3GB repository. Such amount of
memory could be not available for cloud-based subversion hosting
providers, for example.
With the default 16Mb cache I have quite duifferent results shown in
the . My tests show that FSFS7 could be 2-10 times slower that
FSFS6 in the default configurations.
Received on 2014-06-19 12:37:05 CEST