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

Re: Speed issues with ra_neon to remote repositories

From: John Beranek <john_at_redux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:29:03 +0100

Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: Hyrum K. Wright [mailto:hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org]
>> Verzonden: woensdag 24 juni 2009 17:14
>> Aan: John Beranek
>> CC: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
>> Onderwerp: Re: Speed issues with ra_neon to remote repositories
>>
>> On Jun 24, 2009, at 10:05 AM, John Beranek wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Archer wrote:
>>>>> Bob Archer wrote:
>>>>>>> OK, so on the surface ra_svn is clearly the solution...except
>>>>>>> you can't do transparent proxying of reads/writes to a local
>>>>>>> slave with ra_svn...so you're going have to get to the
>>>>>>> situation of doing general read operations from the local
>>>>>>> slave, either with ra_svn or ra_neon and then when you do a
>>>>>>> (large) commit have to switch to
>>>>> using
>>>>>>> ra_svn. This will either require a deal of effort for the
>>>>>>> individual engineer, or a script to perform this for them.
>>>>>> My first question would be, do you "really" need the
>>>>>> slave/mirrors?
>>>>> We have development that is shared across sites. So, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> John.
>>>> We do too... three sites. Yet, we only have a single repo server
>> at
>>>> one site that all users access.
>>> That wouldn't help though - commits from India direct to the UK
>> master
>>> are still _very_ slow.
>> Subversion's HTTPv2, a reduced-turnaround implementation of the DAV
>> protocol will debut in Subversion 1.7. It doesn't help you *now*,
>> but
>> hopefully it will have significant impact on high-latency links,
>> such
>> as from India to the UK. You can read about it here:
>> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/http-protocol-v2.txt
>
> Unfortunately, it says:
> - enable pipelined PUTs [OUT-OF-SCOPE]
>
> which may be just what the OP is after ...

Ah indeed - does that mean that pipelined PUTs are unlikely to be
implemented in the 1.7 timeframe?

John.

-- 
John Beranek                         To generalise is to be an idiot.
http://redux.org.uk/                                 -- William Blake
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2365202
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].

Received on 2009-06-25 10:30:53 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.