On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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)
> 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:
> (whole thread here:
> Updating neon to > 0.28.2 would help.
Thanks Stefan for pointing that thread. I've already seen it and of
course we're using latest neon 0.28.6 to build VisualSVN and VisualSVN
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-30 20:16:28 CEST