Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> wrote on 08/11/2013 03:24:31 AM:
> > Hi Johan,
> > I think you are spot on on both issues - thank you.
> You're welcome :-).
> > The performance issue relates to SVN externals stem, in my case, from
> > connections for each http request for externals versus keeping an open
> > for non-externals. Each connection results in a second or so delay.
> > Multiply this by hundreds and updates that would take seconds,
> > minutes. There's been quite a bit of discussion about pooling
> > believe, but I don't know the current state of this effort or if its
> > plan.
> Hm, there were indeed some discussions (and patch attempts) recently,
> but I'm not sure of the current state either. There is an open issue
> about this in the issue tracker:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3763 (checkout
> should re-use ra session for externals if possible)
> It's marked as "started", but I'm not sure if that's correct status at
> this point.
> I'm cc'ing Ben Reser (who has the above issue assigned to him) and
> Ivan Zhakov (who recenty wrote a patch for this). Perhaps they can
> shed some light on the current state of "RA session caching".
> As far as I remember from discussions during the Berlin Hackathon,
> this was deemed too risky for 1.8, but perhaps within scope for 1.9.
> > All that said, is there a work around to convincing SVN to recreate
> > without a full fledge update?
> No, I'm afraid I know of no workaround.
> Perhaps some further variation of what you're already trying (but I'm
> sure you did already many trial and error attempts).
I think a short term workaround would be to detect if an external file
name path was changed and force a full update. For revision updates only,
I believe I could still make this solution work (update local properties
and iterate over externals that do not match, updating one by one). This
will give us a huge performance boost for some of our cases.
Thanks for the help!
Received on 2013-08-11 19:35:19 CEST