Re: Subversion 1.9.0-dev FSFS performance tests
On 19 June 2014 17:06, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Turn out that the ruby repo is something special
> in that it has very deep histories of relatively few,
> very small files combined with one huge changelog
> file (the latter taking up ~75% of the repo). See
> below for details.
> Also, please note that your exports contained
>>500000 files. Using 16MB of cache with that
> project size *may* not be an adequate setup.
> Upping that to insane 256MB (roughly what 1.6
> would use anyway), gives much better numbers.
> However, there is hardly a difference between
> f6 and f7 in these runs.
> Here my measurements with svn: under Linux:
There is still misleading information about real fsfs7 performance:
1. You're comparing fsfs7 packed vs fsfs6 packed and do not provide
data for fsfs6/fsfs7 unpacked. I already demonstrated you that fsfs6
unpacked (default) is dramatically faster with defaults options.
2. You're still testing svn:// protocol only. And you even don't
bother to test http:// protocol, while I demonstrated you 10 times
performance degradation on the same test data.
Also I don't see anything special with repositories with deep
histories: that's pretty typical for source code.
CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
Received on 2014-06-20 11:23:06 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev