SteveKing <email@example.com> wrote on 04/25/2005 02:21:54 PM:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > But I thought when the svn client library was talking to a 1.1 server,
> > did the filtering locally, since the server did not support the
> I don't know about that. Maybe it does, but I couldn't see any network
> activity the last time I checked. Only at the very end where the 100
> entries were shown.
That could just be a different issue. I seem to recall Ben
Collins-Sussman recently complaining how this option isn't "streamy". So
maybe that is why you see a big lull before you get the data.
> > I understand the sentiment. However, if you had a need to run 1.2 for
> > project, but still has to use a 1.1 server for a different project,
> > might feel differently. Using this option against a 1.1 server that
> > lot of revisions is a bit painful.
> I can even understand that. But the work to implement something like
> this isn't really worth it. Ok, an option would not be that much work,
> but then people would turn that option to "1.1" and forget about it.
> Then, when all servers are updated they would forget to change the
> option back to "1.2" - and then we'd have a feature in TSVN/Subversion
> which noone would use :(
Yeah, I was just thinking out loud. It probably isn't worth the effort.
> > I think this was a red-herring. I have not been using this repository
> > much lately and I think it might have been a server-side caching
> > in reading the repository from disk. The more I ran the option the
> > it got. I now see the log in a couple of seconds.
> Did you do a dump of the repository when you upgraded? It isn't really
> necessary, but if you do you'll get a speedup (they changed the way the
> revisions are stored. So if you now commit to it they're stored the new
> way, but the old ones still are stored the-old-way). That's why you
> should do a dump/load when upgrading to 1.2 - you don't have to, but I'd
> recommend it.
No. My real repository is on another server running 1.1. This is an old
copy that I decided to upgrade to 1.2 so I could test locking. I think
that is why the performance was bad, the server has been idle for a long
time so there would be nothing in the server's read cache. Also, this is
an active file server for other purposes. Once I "woke it up" performance
picked up dramatically.
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Mon Apr 25 20:29:15 2005