On 20.06.2014 11:22, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> 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.
I have to agree with Ivan on the topic of comparing performance
measurements. Let's try to get rid of observer bias here, please.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. brane_at_wandisco.com
Received on 2014-06-21 17:18:57 CEST