> Hi David,
>> I run another check with 1000 files in a test directory:
>> -> Just saying 'svn lock *' works fine, it locks file after file and gives a good visual feedback of what is happening.
>> -> TortoiseSVN (v1.9.4) instead shows up nearly immeadiatly "Locked by ... file ..." for about 37 files, then pauses with transfer-speed-zero. If waiting long enough (about 5 min) it continues working but throws an already-locked-error for about 50 files and then continues locking the missing ones correctly.
>> For me it seems that TortoiseSVN somehow tries to lock a bunch of files immeadiatly but can't receive all server-answers on a slow (bad?) connection (Java-SSL-Tunnel) and finally times out. SVN instead seems to work file-by-file (as did Tortoise 1.8.12) and manages to lock all files without problems.
>> Could this be a possible explanation? Is there a possibility (i.e. a setting) to switch back to the "old" file-by-file locking?
> That's kind of my suspicion here too (aka: some operation fails/breaks
> on the server or the transmission is lost, client waits for a time out
> and then you have the hang which you are describing).
> Maybe Stefan Küng can confirm whether TSVN just utilizes the SVN
> library here directly (rather than doing some special things itself).
> If so, it's worth moving that on to the SVN users list, I guess...
On the SVN IRC channel I've been pointed to this known JIRA issue by
This could be the problem you are facing.
The underlying change between SVN 1.8 and 1.9 here is that 1.9 can
produce an http-header section which is much larger than it would be
with the 1.8 client. That however depends on some changes in TSVN and I
can't confirm whether that really is the case (maybe someone else can do).
For instance if SVN 1.9 would introduce a new API supporting the
multi-lock-case and TSVN 1.9 makes use of that (while TSVN 1.8 would use
the older SVN API) the net result is that with 1.9 you run into the
header-issue described in SVN-4557 while with TSVN 1.8 you wouldn't.
Given that you state you don't have any issues when not using the
SSL-tunnel, I could imagine that the SSL-tunnel protocol/server is
having trouble with passing on the longer http-header section in 1.9.
Maybe that's a lead helping you to find a workaround?
You could also check your server logs to see whether that's the actual
problem and where it is located (for instance for Apache 2.4 it could
report something like: Request header exceeds LimitRequestFieldSize). If
so and it's a feasible option for you, you could tweak the corresponding
server side setting.
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2016-05-06 13:12:16 CEST