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

Re: Speeding up workspace

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:10:06 +0100

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Listman <listman_at_burble.net> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 6:15 AM- Feb 17, 2009, Toby Thain wrote:
>>> performance is the MAIN issue with Subversion, with large wc's
>>> performance
>>> is just horrible.. the Perforce folks look at our performance and
>>> laugh, there are
>>> examples of this all over this list..
>>> it seems a little arrogant of the developers to ignore this issue,
>>> don't user
>>> concerns count for anything?
>> We see from many posts here that it is essentially a problem for
>> Windows users (in several years of use I've never had a problem with
>> workspace performance on OS X or Linux). It could be that the
>> adoption profile for Subversion is shifting towards Windows (perhaps
>> the bad news about VSS is finally getting through).
>> A little patience would serve you, and as Hyrum said, help is always
>> welcome.
> No my friend, this is an issue on Linux and OSX too. The fact that you
> don't have an issue is (in the grand scheme) irrelevant. Look through
> the archives for all the folks that are having issues on Linux filesystems.
> None of my customers are on windows, and they are all having issues
> with performance. I'm fairly sure that the Facebook dev that posted on
> this thread is not on Windows also.

> I am patient but this Subversion performance with large wc's has been
> an issue for years now. I repeat YEARS! And this is largely because of
> people like you telling us that there is no issue and the SVN developers
> working out there in remote locations with a single working copy on a
> permanently cached laptop. Completely unrealistic..

Now I'm offended. Subversion developers are very well aware of the
issues with the working copy library. Nobody is telling us there is no
problem, however, for smaller working copies and subtrees of large
ones, the problems are tolerable.

We have been working on fixing the performance issues within the
existing library, as well as correctness issues. Moreover, we have
been implementing merge tracking and other very strongly demanded
(required) features.

And where were you all those years? Since you have customers using
Subversion, you presumably have income off Subversion, what have you
contributed in terms of development or design effort? Or any other
effort which could have resolved the issue, for that matter?

> My prediction is that 1.7 will not show up before this time next year.
> Its a big change and the people driving this are very relaxed about
> schedules.

Now come on... We're very strict in our quality levels is what would
have been more approprate for you to say. Ofcourse that comes at a
time cost; cost/quality will remain a trade-off, one I hope we will
keep making in favor of quality for a long time to come!

> There were a number of things that were promised for 1.6 that didn't
> make the cut, who's to say this issue will get resolved?

And what will you do to make sure it does?

> How about a branch Burt? Leave us cynics to ourselves on that branch
> while the rest of you wait for 1.7..

I'm against that. And I hope all other devs are too: Bert (not Burt)
has indicated that patch can't be used in production. Don't be
tempted to do so. You'll learn to appreciate our efforts to achieve
the quality standards that we do, if you use it. As Bert says: It will
eat your production working copies for sure.




To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-17 20:11:12 CET

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.