Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CA+298Ug_ni7AiSUe2e69WnbSpOjr15D9osz-+=kLHtiG-hkMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+298Ug_ni7AiSUe2e69WnbSpOjr15D9osz-+=kLHtiG-hkMFQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 15:19:48 +0200
Message-ID: <CAB84uBWm4O9PAf7N8n94BbRF2Bh2i4Fs_7UHwHs-i_e=uBeDcw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Benchmarks for PUT for various fsfs config settings.
To: Paul Hammant <paul@hammant.org>
Cc: Subversion Development <dev@subversion.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
archived-at: Tue, 01 Aug 2017 13:20:23 -0000

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Paul Hammant <paul@hammant.org> wrote:
> Chart:
>
>     http://imgur.com/cKe2l4J
>
> In Python I made two 128GB random files, then uploaded them alternately six
> ties three each to the same endpoint in Svn over DAV.  That would be a run.
> After wiping the server repo and repeating that, I performed four runs all
> in all. For each datapoint, I took the quickest time.
>
> Settings that were part of the benchmark, compression off (0) versus
> compression as default. delticication off versus default, and rep-sharing on
> versus off.
>
> Conclusion for my intended Svn use (biiig binary files):
>
> 1. compression off
> 2. deltification off
> 3. all else default

Interesting. Thanks for sharing!

There seems to be some typo: the chart mentions 128 MB, but your mail
says 128 GB. I suppose it's MB and the times on the chart are in
seconds?

-- 
Johan