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

Re: Current FSFS performance [RAW]

From: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 22:42:32 +0200

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> Addendum. Julian found an omission in the last line of
>> explanations for "Export New" it should read:
>> "_packed_ F7 consistently faster than F6 even with fast I/O but cold caches"
> Only in the "SSD cold" column; "SSD hot" f7/f6 ratio varies around +/- 5% with one outlier (BSD packed repo, "fast" system) where f7 is much slower than f6 (+31%).

Well, I tried to express that with the "but cold caches" bit.
Could probably use same punctuation there.

> I'd be interested to see a re-run of the HDD tests with this build (r1607306); do you plan to do that?

Can't until late September. However, I should get a Windows
box soon to conduct testing in less controlled environment.

> Also:
> For "load" what repository are you loading into (format? packed?) and if packed, how/when is it being packed?

Load is into f6 and f7, respectively as indicated in the tables
(the dump files used are format independent). Repositories
were left non-packed.

> Could you attach the actual scripts you use?

I simply hacked up a shell script and derived variations from
it for the new runs. It requires superuser rights for the cache
flushing bits and some paths have to be adjusted manually.
Storage locations get symlinked to /files to unify access.

Scripts are provided as are without further commentary etc.

> In the later PDF file "load" is not mentioned in the summary of tests at the top of the file.

The load bit had been a late addition and I forgot to update the
introduction page. Parameters are the same as for the first run.
(It took 10h total to transform the raw logs into a spreadsheet -
Formatting in LibreOffice turns out to be super buggy).

> Do you plan to re-test r1607306 over HTTP?

Not at the moment as the f6 / f7 relation seems to be the same
for svn: as for http:. ra_serf results seem to be slightly less
consistent / predictable than ra_svn, making it harder to tell
whether a given test sequence got disturbed.

-- Stefan^2.

Received on 2014-07-02 22:43:02 CEST

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.