I'm using 1.6.x. I wasn't aware that there'd been sufficient
server-side work in 1.7.x as to make this distinction important.
// ben
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 16:12, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> You haven't mentioned what version of svn you use. As you say, there
> has been work recently --- some of it is in 1.7, some of it is on
> ^/subversion/branches/performance, some of it is on
> ^/subversion/branches/revprop-packing, and some additional ideas
> are in notes/fsfs-improvements.txt in trunk.
>
> Ben Smith-Mannschott wrote on Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 15:44:20 +0200:
>> I've made the observation that FSFS repositories perform better on
>> EXT4 than BTRFS. This probably isn't ground-breaking, but I thought
>> I'd share it.
>>
>> I've got two Linux machines:
>>
>> - colossus, using BTRFS spanned over two disks.
>> 2.6.38-11-generic #48-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 29 19:02:55 UTC 2011
>> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>> - oberon, using EXT4 on a 2-disk software RAID-1 set.
>> Linux oberon 2.6.32-33-generic #72-Ubuntu SMP Fri Jul 29 21:07:13 UTC 2011
>> x86_64 GNU/Linux
>>
>> I've noticed that writes to FSFS repositories are 5x faster under EXT4
>> than BTRFS. When svnsyncing form the same svn:// source to an local
>> repository (file://), oberon completes about 400 revisions in the time
>> it takes colossus to grind through 80.
>>
>> The BTRFS machine is our build server. Performance with (1.6.x)
>> working copies is quite acceptable, but I'm glad I'm not using it to
>> host svn repositories.
>>
>> Looks like the BTRFS people have some work to do. Maybe current
>> Kernels have already improved this picture. I know there has been
>> recent work on reducing the cost of meta-data operations (e.g. file
>> creation, ...) and that work is ongoing on defragmentation
>> functionality because of poor performance on files that are modified
>> in place heavily (e.g. sqlite).
>>
>> // ben
>
Received on 2011-09-12 17:29:06 CEST