Which kernel version you running?
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Paul Hammant <paul_at_hammant.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
> - Paul
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 2:22 AM, Markus Schaber <m.schaber_at_codesys.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
--
Jacek Materna
CTO
Assembla
+1 210 410 7661
+48 578 296 708
Received on 2017-07-15 10:23:08 CEST