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

Re: Trials with memcached

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2011 03:58:13 +0300

Tony Butt wrote on Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 10:41:43 +1000:
> On Fri, 2011-07-08 at 02:59 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > This doesn't address memcached directly, but there has been a /lot/ of
> > work on server-side optimization and caching in 1.7 (also for
> > non-memcached-backed caches).
> >
> > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.7#server-performance-tuning
> >
> > You might want to take 1.7.0-alpha3 for a spin...
> >
> Probably don't want to do that.
> We are in a commercial environment, with some 20 developers relying on
> subversion - not the time for an alpha release.
>

I wasn't suggesting that you upgrade your production server!

Just that you install the alpha in a test environment to see if it
improves the situation for you. (or if there is anything you see that
requires modification /before/ the release --- before compatibility
promises apply --- as in eg issue #3952)

> We are actually happy with the current performance, particularly since
> the load of other tasks on the server (backups, opengrok indexing of the
> repo for instance) is now shared by 4 processors instead of 1. I was
> reviewing the overall configuration, and we already use memcached to
> support ReviewBoard for code reviews.
>
> We will be particularly interested in server side performance
> improvements when 1.7.0 is released - we have home grown build
> dependency tools that are sometimes heavy on the repository usage -
> these will be difficult to upgrade to 1.7.0, but if there are uncoupled
> server performance improvements, the server upgrade is trivial by
> comparison.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony Butt
> > Tony Butt wrote on Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 15:20:27 +1000:
> > > We are running subversion 1.6.17 on a vmware hosted server. We recently
> > > reconfigured the server to give 4 virtual CPUs (up from 1), and a
> > > significant amount of memory.
> > >
> > >
> > > In order to spruce up our performance a little, I looked into the use of
> > > memcached with subversion again, found the correct config parameter, and
> > > set it up. Our server is running Ubuntu 10.04, Apache 2.2. Access
> > > mechanism is http (of course). The client used is running Ubuntu 11.04,
> > > and svn commandline (1.6.17 also)
> > >
> > > The results were interesting, to say the least.
> > >
> > > Checkout of a tree, about 250M in size:
> > >
> > > Without memcached, 1 1/2 to 2 minutes, varies with server load
> > > With memcached, 12 minutes (!)
> > >
> > > Update of the same tree,
> > > Without memcached, 9 seconds
> > > With memcached, 14 seconds - repeated several times, similar results.
> > >
> > > I am not sure what anyone else's experience is, but we will not be
> > > enabling memcached for subversion any time soon.
> > > --
> > > Tony Butt <tjb_at_cea.com.au>
> > > CEA Technologies
> > >
>
> --
> Tony Butt <tjb_at_cea.com.au>
> CEA Technologies
Received on 2011-07-08 02:58:55 CEST

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