Markus - you may be right on hopes for perf improvements.
I'm reevaluating what I said a couple of days ago in this thread. The best
case PUT times for that 15GB random resource at *7 mins*, but about 1/5 of
them are at *15 mins*. I'm going to try to undo the TMPDIR change and see
if it goes back to 15 mins consistently
The drive is mounted as 'async' in Linux. Is that what you meant by no-sync
? Sync kills USB drive performance by 90% on Linux in my experience.
The 4TB drive's Svn server size is now up at 3TB, if anyone is interested.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Markus Schaber <m.schaber_at_codesys.com>
> Hi, Paul,
> If at all, I’d expect a speed boost if the temp folder is on a fast drive
> (e. G. SSD or RAM Disk) separate from the backend storage, so storage and
> temp file I/O won’t compete for I/O. (Size of RAM useable for OS caches
> also makes a difference, and mount options like “no-sync” which can be
> acceptable for temp folders – but never for backend storage, of course).
> And I also guess the speed difference is more siginificant if there are
> several concurrent accesses, so the I/O operations overlap. A single SVN
> backend process is pretty much “serialized” in what it does, no concurrent
> / async I/O yet.
Received on 2017-07-13 12:44:43 CEST