On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> 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)
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
> 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
> Server.
I would not expect it to hurt performance, but could you have more
logging enabled than the default Apache? Ari have you done any kind
of general comparison of the Apache configurations? Maybe there is
something different in the directives used in the two configurations
that is causing the performance difference.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2402220
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-30 20:20:41 CEST