On 5/28/06, Alex Le Dain <alex@psi.com.au> wrote:
> D.J. Heap wrote:
> > I've had rare sporadic crashes in the test suite with BDB, but since
> > they were not consistently reproduceable and I don't use BDB, I
> > haven't tried to chase them down. If you can provide a full batch
> > script to create the repo, stress it, etc to repro it, I'll try it out
> > on BDB 4.4.20 and Subversion trunk on Win32.
>
> Thanks DJ,
>
> The repository was created with :
>
> cd\svn
> md repos
> bin\svnadmin create --fs-type bdb repos/testbdb
> bin\svnserve -d -r repos/
>
> and the spamming script is just:
>
> svn ls -v "svn://192.168.0.66/ts"
>
> repeated 50 times in a .cmd file.
What kind of machine? Multiprocessor?
>
> I am considering converting to fsfs because of a couple of comments that
> have been made, but a dump load cycle on ~10GB of data will take a while ;-)
Yes it will...IIRC, our largest repo was around 1GB when I converted
and took an hourish. Definitely get good backups and do a test run
first, though.
>
> What are you experiences with 'checkout speed' and 'finalization delay
> may cause client timeouts' and 'scaleability with number of entries',
> because in the comparison table
> (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.reposadmin.html#svn.reposadmin.basics.backends)
> these seem to be the only real cons.
At the time I converted, fsfs was as fast or faster in all the cases I
tried (checkout was virtually the same speed and other things were
noticeably faster) and we ended up with a smaller repo as well. Since
then some things have been optimized better on both repo types, I
believe, so those results may not be valid anymore.
We've never had any troubles at all since the conversion, but our
biggest repo is only 1.5GB or so and we don't have any really huge
files. But do some testing with your data files and see how it goes
-- it's pretty easy to setup and test.
>
> Our group uses tortoiseSVN and the server is on ntfs, and I don't think
> going to a command line based client is an option at all.
>
> I am going to look into DB_CONFIG and see if there is anything obvious I
> can tweak.
>
I think I just added a zero to some of the interesting-looking
parameters and things got better. Locks and log file block sizes are
what comes to mind, but it was a long time ago. Some of the
parameters are dependant on each other, and so must be increased
together, if I remember correctly. And they affect memory usage, of
course.
DJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 29 09:43:50 2006