Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-subversion-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3726B18107 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:19:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 52490 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2016 17:19:39 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-dev-archive@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 52422 invoked by uid 500); 15 Feb 2016 17:19:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 52410 invoked by uid 99); 15 Feb 2016 17:19:38 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd3-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:19:38 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd3-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd3-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 3AA8F1806B6 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:19:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd3-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.82 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.82 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd3-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=akesson.cc header.b=OyNnyuEQ; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=U29s5zkW Received: from mx2-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd3-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.10]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ky8A0zoovp8o for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:19:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com (out1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 1C7975FBB4 for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:19:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A3E20BCB for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from frontend1 ([10.202.2.160]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:19:36 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akesson.cc; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-sasl-enc :x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=noqQTgIbXmicQTiGIdUBAkh0V8k=; b=OyNnyu EQ9rQV9ZyVFyMc4uitOnLes/bALnqF0gKIUH7ZJnFzFpjHE+jHzOYa8zosMM16pj CUCDo7yVvx/7GBB+OEyVL/bS5YPKj2XPhMSmRfKp8FAS8btdhhnoIWW27mVkxeCu 62tDZE0dT13oZHjQ0Ppu0ZuL5sQU1rBAUbvg0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=smtpout; bh=noqQTgIbXmicQTi GIdUBAkh0V8k=; b=U29s5zkWAPof0m+U6/v3O4XZSnwSy4Pc4FjD9J4FA2JCw9R aqYKZd6cZmIYOfhsaT/59uG51bbV713KnXHceN8R9Q/Cxou2YSVTtPgnwxzd5KuM fyFs+cJ4n/y/Jm/hykRchkmH5u0ifWhpZdUIiGAg8/BxHNqkSvpLdUXFRdsE= X-Sasl-enc: JTSlq8NpppbMwOaeXbDASnXDNc3WjAP7GwgRnETSxKaX 1455556776 Received: from [10.30.20.174] (unknown [83.218.70.138]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D0673C00016; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 12:19:35 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\)) Subject: Re: Merging parallel-put to /trunk From: =?utf-8?Q?Thomas_=C3=85kesson?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 18:19:34 +0100 Cc: Greg Stein , Stefan Fuhrmann , Subversion Development Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <56A377B4.9090903@alice-dsl.de> <56ACB185.4020506@apache.org> To: Evgeny Kotkov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112) > I think that local commits are usually fast enough. But committing = over > a high-latency network, e.g., with a transatlantic RTT of 150ms, can = be > painfully slow =E2=80=94 see below. Poor network connections are of course a very important concern, likely = even more important than some additional seconds wait when committing = large files on a perfect connection. That said, I really don=E2=80=99t believe in the single-POST approach. = Consider how that would work on a crappy connection when traveling on a = train. TCP-connections are frequently broken, or worse, stalling.=20 Going to parallel PUTs will likely address both issues: - Great connection: Multi core performance, very much in line with CPU = development in recent years. Also competes better with other network = traffic as more and more applications open many TCP-connection. - Poor connection: High latency, whatever, the waiting time gives more = space for the other uploads (assuming that all parallel PUTs are not = entirely in sync).=20 Regards, Thomas =C3=85.