On 07.11.2014 17:46, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> On 07.11.2014 16:02, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 07.11.2014 14:07, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>>> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months
>>>>> ago .
>>>> How many times do how many people have to explain that saying "-1"
>>>> without substantiating that with technical reasons is not a valid veto?
>>>> -- Brane
>>> I think it is fair to ask whether it makes sense to introduce a fairly risky feature that adds marginal benefits into a mature and stable area of the code.
>> Performance test results seem to imply that the benefits are far from
> The bias I bring to the table here is that my view of a "typical" SVN deployment is an Apache SSL server that is serving at least dozens of repositories though often it is hundreds. With fairly random access across those repositories.
This is exactly the kind of deployment that can benefit from FSFSv7: the
changes in data layout and other details make cold-cache performance
much better than FSFSv6. Performance test results appear to corroborate
that; though I don't think anyone actually tested this by running
hundreds of clients against dozens of repositories.
Received on 2014-11-07 21:01:14 CET