'svn co' stats: fsfs 50% faster than bdb?!?

I ran some loops checking out approx. 15000 files over a LAN from both
a BDB repository and an FSFS repository populated from the same dump,
using 1.4 client and server.

I also compared protocols svn://, svn+ssh://, http:// and https://.

The repository is on local mirrored SCSI disks. The working copy was
on local mirrored SCSI disks (on a different machine). The files are
C, C++, shell scripts, a few MS Word docs; part of the normal mix of
development files and support docs for a large project.

Here are the results from seven loops of checking out over four
different protocols from the two different repository formats:

ID=co-bdb-http COUNT=7 AVERAGE=1330.13
ID=co-bdb-https COUNT=7 AVERAGE=1364.61
ID=co-bdb-svn COUNT=7 AVERAGE=1153.71
ID=co-bdb-svn+ssh COUNT=7 AVERAGE=1183.68
ID=co-fsfs-http COUNT=7 AVERAGE= 741.70
ID=co-fsfs-https COUNT=7 AVERAGE= 779.40
ID=co-fsfs-svn COUNT=7 AVERAGE= 583.04
ID=co-fsfs-svn+ssh COUNT=7 AVERAGE= 644.61

That svn is fastest and https slowest was no surprise, but that FSFS
was faster than BDB was a great surprise and seems to go against
everything I've read; can anybody confirm or explain this?

For completeness, I also did some server side svnadmin operations
using a much smaller dump, this produced:

ID=create-bdb COUNT=88 AVERAGE= 1.02
ID=create-fsfs COUNT=89 AVERAGE= 0.11
ID=dump-bdb COUNT=88 AVERAGE= 66.67
ID=dump-fsfs COUNT=88 AVERAGE= 47.75
ID=hotcopy-bdb COUNT=88 AVERAGE= 2.83
ID=hotcopy-fsfs COUNT=88 AVERAGE= 2.30
ID=load-bdb COUNT=88 AVERAGE=2194.32
ID=load-fsfs COUNT=88 AVERAGE= 451.61

No surprises here: BDB (without the NOSYNC tweak) is a lot slower
loading than FSFS.

Any explanations of the co bdb/fsfs difference appreciated! Thanks!

Alexis Huxley

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 23 12:15:24 2006