Re: svn commit: r1656616 - in /subversion/branches/reuse-ra-session: BRANCH-README subversion/libsvn_client/client.h subversion/libsvn_client/ra_cache.c

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:52 PM, <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
>...

> +++ subversion/branches/reuse-ra-session/BRANCH-README Tue Feb 3 01:52:26
> 2015
> @@ -8,12 +8,19 @@ all changes made in the branch.
>
> STATUS
> ======
> -+ Initial implementation
> -- Do not call svn_ra_* methods in find_session_by_url() because callback
> - table may be destroyed at that time.
> +
> +done:
> +- Initial implementation.
> +- Separate active and inactive session lists.
> +
> +todo:
> +- Fix timeout in davautocheck tests at log_tests.py::log_diff_moved.
> +- Limit the number of unused open sessions.
> +- Run performance comparisons between trunk and branch to prove that
> + the RA session cache does in fact speed things up.
>

This is the part that I wonder about. If we had 1000 sessions, then I
*might* start to believe a separation would be interesting.

A cache of sessions: sure; that's why we already had a cache.

But to split that apart and keep multiple lists? Did you have an indicator
somewhere that this split could help? That "get me a connected RA session"
was somehow noticeably slow, relative to a simple iteration sessions?

Thanks,
-g
Received on 2015-02-04 03:22:32 CET