I use FSFS & run SVN on Apache. Yeah I figured the bottle necking could be
happening on the windows desktop. And not just mine. All my users have the
same complaints. Any suggesting for optimization? I did suggest to them to
run chkdsk /f or scandisk and force a defrag.
I have a question on upgrading SVN. When I download the new .rpm, do I need
to bring down apache and can I just install the newer version seamlessly
while the server's running? And does it by defualt install on top of the
old version and overwrite the old installation or completely to a new
directory?
Thanks.
----Original Message Follows----
From: Patrik Rak <patrik@mindwarestudios.com>
To: Res Pons <pons32@hotmail.com>
CC: "juergenr@segue.at" <juergenr@segue.at>,users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: checkout performance
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:48:53 +0100 (CET)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: from eagle.mindwarestudios.com ([82.119.242.130]) by
bay0-mc10-f3.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 20
Dec 2005 02:02:07 -0800
Received: from hawk.bh.mindwarestudios.com (hawk.bh.mindwarestudios.com
[192.168.2.2])by eagle.mindwarestudios.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid
DC97C3679E; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:48:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from falcon.bh.mindwarestudios.com (falcon.bh.mindwarestudios.com
[192.168.2.65])by hawk.bh.mindwarestudios.com (Postfix) with ESMTPid
BFCD313255; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:48:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: by falcon.bh.mindwarestudios.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)id
96C8F675; Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:48:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])by
falcon.bh.mindwarestudios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C313495;Tue, 20 Dec
2005 10:48:53 +0100 (CET)
X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jEHjJx36Oi8+Z3TmmkSEdPtfpLB7P/ybN8=
X-X-Sender: patrik@falcon.bh.mindwarestudios.com
References: <BAY113-F32C12EF136DB347F356ADCCC3F0@phx.gbl>
Return-Path: patrik@mindwarestudios.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2005 10:02:08.0273 (UTC)
FILETIME=[70153810:01C6054C]
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Res Pons wrote:
>To make you feel better: I serve Subversion on a super fast Linux
>Enterprise server with 4 Xeon processors, tons of disk space, and tons of
>RAM. All the users' desktop clients are Pentium4 @3-4GHZ with WinXP +
>512MB to 1GB of RAM. And a complete fresh check out still takes 20-25
>minutes for a 250MB project! Sometimes my patience just runs out. Not to
>mention it's extremely CPU intensive and takes my PC hostage. I literally
>cannot do anything until SVN is done checking out. NOW, consider yourself
>lucky :)
What backend do you use, BDB or FSFS?
We use FSFS, our server is a lame 2.6GHz P4 with 1G RAM and I thought the
speed quite sucks when it checks out at 4MB/s (on repositories ranging from
2GB to 8GB). The CVS was able to check out the 8GB repository in less than
20 minutes (but of course the CVS suffers from the notoriously known
problems SVN has solved).
If you use BDB, you might consider using FSFS instead. I did not measure the
check out speeds of BDB, the initial import speed was so terribly slow I
gave up and went with FSFS right away.
Also notice that the FSFS format has improved in 1.2.x to speed up the check
outs, but you have to redump your 1.1.x repository to get that advantage.
However, the bottleneck in your case may be in the windows clients. The
windows filesystems are ridiculously slow when compared to Linux or Mac,
especially when the operation involves huge number of files.
Patrik
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 20 19:54:04 2005