On 30.09.2009 13:31, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mark Phippard<markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Ari S<sadarjoen_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> VisualSVN Server is just properly compiled and packaged original
>>>> Subversion. So you shouldn't have difference in performance between
>>>> VisualSVN Server and CollabNet.
>>>> Could you please provide a little bit more information about your
>>>> configuration: server os, client os, IPv4 or IPv4, etc. What operation
>>>> you are used to measure peformance?
>>>
>>> Oops, I discovered that I was using the CollabNet version 1.5.4 and
>>> VisualSVN Server based on SVN 1.6.3.
>>> Could that have made such a big difference???
>>
>> I doubt it. Most changes in 1.6 were to the client layers, but even
>> setting that aside it would be rare for a server version to get
>> significantly slower.
>>
> Mark it is not true. Subversion 1.6 has significant changes in
> file-system layer which actively used on the server side:
> * Sharing multiple common representations (server)
> * FSFS repositories: Support for Memcached (server)
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.6_releasenotes.html#filesystem-improvements
Just a thought:
What Windows-SDK version were you using to compile the VisualSVN server?
If you used the Vista SDK (or later), then you might have triggered a
nasty bug in neon which can cause a massive slowdown:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-06/0687.shtml
(whole thread here:
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsMessageId=40029&dsForumId=462
)
Updating neon to > 0.28.2 would help.
Stefan
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2402170
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-30 18:40:26 CEST