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

Re: subversion 1.3.1 + apr 0.9.7 = memory leak?

From: David Young <dyoung_at_pobox.com>
Date: 2006-05-04 21:34:11 CEST

On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 10:05:29PM -0700, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 5/3/06, David Young <dyoung@pobox.com> wrote:
> >I have installed Subversion 1.3.1 and APR 0.9.7 from pkgsrc on a NetBSD
> >3.99.7 box. I created a fresh fsfs database and svn import'd the
> >entire NetBSD source tree.
> >
> >When I run commands such as 'svn co' and 'svn status -u' on the
> >repository, they take several minutes to run (i.e., too long), and svn's
> >memory usage climbs to 150MB, which seems unusually high. This is not
> >acceptable performance in my application, and I am wondering if there is
> >some easy way to speed up operations on large repositories such as mine.
> >
> >I have scanned the users@subversion mailing list archives for others'
> >reports about high memory usage and slow commands, and I do not find
> >any reports concerning 1.3.x.
> >
> >I am beginning to suspect that a memory leak in APR 0.9.7 is behind the
> >high memory usage. Can anyone confirm? Do most people use APR 1.2 with
> >Subversion 1.3.1?
> Operations on large working copies (including checkout and status)
> will use amounts of memory proportional to its size, due to the
> caching of information about the entries in each directory. It's
> either that or you get unacceptable speed hits from parsing the
> entries file multiple times. The version of APR you use will probably
> have no noticable effect on memory usage, and Subversion 1.3.1 is not
> especially worse in this regard than previous versions (although it
> might be slightly worse due to a slightly larger entries object, I
> can't recall).

It seems that the cache grows without bound, without regard for the
potential of thrashing. It ceases to improve performance after a while.

What is the rule for kicking entries out of the cache? Can I reduce
the cache size?

I am surprised that the cost of re-parsing is so great that it pays to
keep a parsed entries object in the cache, especially when the OS holds
the unparsed entries file in disk cache. I am probably just missing


David Young             OJC Technologies
dyoung@ojctech.com      Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 4 21:35:35 2006

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.