Re: Subversion 1.9.0-dev FSFS performance tests

On 07/07/2014 11:23 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 07.07.2014 17:07, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 07/07/2014 10:58 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> My technical opinion that FSFS7/log addressing is slower by design,
>>> because it's doing more (read index, then read data instead of just
>>> read data) and only caching makes them comparable on performance to
>>> FSFS6 repositories.
>> I'm coming into this kinda late and after two weeks of vacation, so
>> please forgive me if I misunderstand the above, but is it true that
>> FSFS7 requires some kind of non-trivial caching just to match FSFS6's
>> performance?
>
> Yup.

May I then presume that for folks who have many repositories being
hosted from a single server, FSFS7 will necessarily bring either a CPU
performance hit (insufficient cache) or a RAM requirement/consumption
hit (sufficient, ginormous cache)? Or is the cache configuration
perhaps per-server rather than per-repository?

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Enterprise Cloud Development