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

Re: Subversion 1.9.0-dev FSFS performance tests

From: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 23:39:08 +0200

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Neels Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 05:23:14PM +0200, Branko ─îibej 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.
>
> <from the off>
> Sounds bad, but then again I remember that wc-ng's projected performance
> boost over 1.6 has not been evident from the start, either.
> "It's what you make of it" ??

Well, given that the detailed results for Windows are in now
as well, the key bits are

* from hot SVN caches, there is no difference between f6 and f7
* from hot OS caches, it's a mixed bag and depends on various factors
* reading from disk, f7 is faster for packed repos even with default configs
* "block-read" doubles the relative speedup but requires larger caches

-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2014-07-15 23:46:16 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.