We also have a large # of files and dirs. The update is much faster
then you're claiming. Updating to 1.4 should help as it uses less files
in the working copy. You might also want to invest in faster disks on
the client and maybe server.
Another thing you can do is set up the working copy on the ramdrive or
use a caching solution. I believe you can create ramdrives natively on
linux and on windows you would need something like SuperCache:
http://www.superspeed.com/servers/supercache.php or SuperVolume:
http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/supervolume.php, depending on how big
the working copies are compared to the ram size. You can also do
RamDisk, but with that, should the computer freeze, you will lose all
the changes. With SuperCache/SuperVolume, I believe the changes are
automatically written to disk after a delay.
Dave_Thomas mailing lists wrote:
> Hi, I'm a developer on the problem with John on this issue.
> It turns out that the huge problem we have on hands is the 23,000
> files in 6,300 dirs in the repo. That's why udpates take 20-60 minutes.
> The minimum we can update right now is 4300 files. This is because
> this contains an XML database that uses schema validation. Updated
> files could point to new files not yet in the WC, which is why we need
> to pull that subtree.
> The bad news for us is that that 4300 files will increase to at least
> 16,000 in the next 3-5 months.
> Currently the update on this subset takes 1 1/2 minutes (as long as no
> files have changed).
> It appears the biggest bottleneck is the seek time and # of hard
> drives. Anyone have an alternative to buying 6 extra hard disks for
> every user or expensive NAS systems?
> Or could moving to subversion 1.4 speed things up?
> On 10/7/06, *Ryan Schmidt* <email@example.com
> <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2006, at 21:52, Troy Curtis Jr wrote:
> > On 10/6/06, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> >> On Oct 6, 2006, at 14:34, Ruslan Sivak wrote:
> >> > Also windows starts being very slow when you have a lot of
> >> > in a directory. I think you are hitting that
> problem. Perhaps in
> >> > the future SVN can be designed to keep a nested directory
> >> > structure, keeping no more then X revisions in a
> folder. Basically
> >> > something like this
> >> >
> >> > revs
> >> > 1/
> >> > 1
> >> > 2
> >> > 3
> >> > ...
> >> > 99
> >> > 100
> >> > 2/ 101
> >> > 102
> >> >
> >> > etc. I'm sure there's a better way to implement this though,
> but I
> >> > think this is definitely needed for large number of revisions on
> >> > windows.
> >> I thought I remembered someone months ago explaining that there
> is no
> >> performance issue, even on Windows. Something about how the
> only time
> >> you have this problem is when you need to get a directory listing,
> >> which Subversion does not need to do, because it already knows what
> >> the files are named, along with something about how the file
> >> hashes based on the first 8 characters of the filename, so
> there's no
> >> issue until revision 100000000 which could take awhile to reach.
> >> Perhaps someone else will remember the discussion and can dig
> up the
> >> old message. I don't remember the specifics very well; I didn't pay
> >> too much attention because I do not use Windows, and I believe the
> >> issue was said to be nonexistent on other platforms.
> > I disagree based on personal experience, on a NON-windows platform.
> > All those revs files just seemed to slow things down. Well, I say
> > that, but most of gain using bdb was that it had a full-copy of the
> > latest revision. FSFS had to run through some number of diffs to
> > contruct my checkout copy and that was probably what was slowing me
> > down. However, it is true when doing a hotcopy of the repository
> > (fsfs hotcopy: ~33minutes bdb hotcopy: ~6 minutes). Of course
> this is
> > a largely OS file copy action.
> That may be, I just don't think that dividing the FSFS revisions
> amongst multiple directories as the OP suggests will alleviate any of
> the performance issues you mention. I don't think it's a problem of
> having all the revision files in a single directory.
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Oct 9 23:34:55 2006