[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: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2014 16:27:52 +0100

Thanks, Stefan.

BTW I really appreciate your taking the time to format the results into different comparison categories, with colour shades. Without that, given just a large table of raw numbers, I would not bother to spend enough time to interpret it. It is worth you, the writer, spending time on it so that we, the readers, don't have to.

- Julian

Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Only in the "SSD cold" column [...]
> 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.
>> 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 2014-07-04 17:31:19 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.