[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: More performance

From: Paul Koning <pkoning_at_equallogic.com>
Date: 2005-09-14 15:19:39 CEST

>>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:

 Ben> On Sep 13, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

>> Related, perhaps, to the checkout performance problem...
>> I had a working directory for trunk. Decided to switch it to a
>> branch.
>> Did the "svn switch" command. That changed about 20 files (out of
>> about 71,000 total). It took 30 minutes, which is just a hair
>> longer than the checkout took.
>> Given that "switch" is supposed to be a shortcut, and there was so
>> little difference between trunk and branch, that's surprising.

 Ben> What this means is that 1% of the clock time was spent
 Ben> installing new files, and 99% of the clock time was spent
 Ben> rewriting the .svn/entries files for 71,000 files. That's a
 Ben> whole lot of xml parsing and rewriting.

 Ben> I expect it will take almost as long to run 'svn update', 'svn
 Ben> status', or 'svn commit'. These are all situations where you're
 Ben> telling the client to do a walk over a gigantic working copy.

That's depressing. If true, it would mean that Subversion across the
board is 3x slower than CVS.

It seems strange that a switch should take the same amount of time as
a checkout, when the checkout has to move across 1.6 GB of data, not
just update XML files. And it should just be one update per
directory, since the URL is common to the directory in the "entries"


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 14 15:22:29 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.