Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of bra@fsn.hu designates
 195.228.252.137 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4EA94AA5.1040105@fsn.hu>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 14:12:21 +0200
From: Attila Nagy <bra@fsn.hu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090817 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Philip Martin <philip.martin@wandisco.com>
CC: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Assertion failed and crash with 1.7.1
References: <4EA7CC74.5000406@fsn.hu> <87y5w73mcb.fsf@stat.home.lan>
 <4EA91AB7.7050903@fsn.hu> <87mxcmhfak.fsf@stat.home.lan>
In-Reply-To: <87mxcmhfak.fsf@stat.home.lan>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------070007080502050105090401"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------070007080502050105090401
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/27/11 12:58, Philip Martin wrote:
> Attila Nagy<bra@fsn.hu>  writes:
>
>> On 10/26/11 15:37, Philip Martin wrote:
>>> Attila Nagy<bra@fsn.hu>   writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm trying to update a working copy of some tens of GBs with svn 1.7.1
>>> Did you upgrade with 1.7.0 or 1.7.1?
>> I've upgraded the WC with 1.7.0, then switched to 1.7.1, which I'm
>> currently using.
>> The upgrade took nearly one week (I can't afford a clean checkout,
>> because I have to preserve the files' inode numbers), at the start it
>> was running very fast, and at the end of the week it could print a new
>> directory in every 8-10 seconds, while the svn processes CPU usage was
>> 100%.
>> The disks weren't touched, it seems that even with a database
>> completely in the OS's buffer cache the SQL operations are pretty slow
>> with a lot of files.
>> Could it be because some indexes are missing (or not optimized for
>> this amount of files), or it is what we could get from SQLite?
> There is one query/index fix in 1.7.1 but it doesn't affect upgrade.
>
> I've not upgraded a wc as large as yours but I have just upgraded a 5GB
> working copy on my desktop machine (3 years old, not hugely powerful).
> It took about 45 minutes and used about 30 minutes of CPU.  There wasn't
> any noticeable slowdown as the update proceeded.
>
> I see that you are using Fibre Channel storage, perhaps there is an
> SQLite issue there?  What sort of filesystem are you using?
>
ZFS.
It it worth to make benchmarks with this WC with 1.6 and 1.7? I so, I 
can try to find the time for it.

--------------070007080502050105090401
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 10/27/11 12:58, Philip Martin wrote:
    <blockquote class=" cite" id="mid_87mxcmhfak_fsf_stat_home_lan"
      cite="mid:87mxcmhfak.fsf@stat.home.lan" type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">Attila Nagy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bra@fsn.hu">&lt;bra@fsn.hu&gt;</a> writes:

</pre>
      <blockquote class=" cite" id="Cite_37" type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">On 10/26/11 15:37, Philip Martin wrote:
</pre>
        <blockquote class=" cite" id="Cite_38" type="cite">
          <pre wrap="">Attila Nagy<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bra@fsn.hu">&lt;bra@fsn.hu&gt;</a>  writes:

</pre>
          <blockquote class=" cite" id="Cite_39" type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">I'm trying to update a working copy of some tens of GBs with svn 1.7.1
</pre>
          </blockquote>
          <pre wrap="">Did you upgrade with 1.7.0 or 1.7.1?
</pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">I've upgraded the WC with 1.7.0, then switched to 1.7.1, which I'm
currently using.
The upgrade took nearly one week (I can't afford a clean checkout,
because I have to preserve the files' inode numbers), at the start it
was running very fast, and at the end of the week it could print a new
directory in every 8-10 seconds, while the svn processes CPU usage was
100%.
The disks weren't touched, it seems that even with a database
completely in the OS's buffer cache the SQL operations are pretty slow
with a lot of files.
Could it be because some indexes are missing (or not optimized for
this amount of files), or it is what we could get from SQLite?
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <pre wrap="">There is one query/index fix in 1.7.1 but it doesn't affect upgrade.

I've not upgraded a wc as large as yours but I have just upgraded a 5GB
working copy on my desktop machine (3 years old, not hugely powerful).
It took about 45 minutes and used about 30 minutes of CPU.  There wasn't
any noticeable slowdown as the update proceeded.

I see that you are using Fibre Channel storage, perhaps there is an
SQLite issue there?  What sort of filesystem are you using?

</pre>
    </blockquote>
    ZFS.<br>
    It it worth to make benchmarks with this WC with 1.6 and 1.7? I so,
    I can try to find the time for it.<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------070007080502050105090401--