subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From <michael_rytt...@agilent.com>
Subject RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x
Date Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:39:02 GMT
I'd have to do some research to get the options.  It's a proprietary filesystem.

That being said, I understand that nfs mounted working copies will degrade my performance.
 I really think this is a more fundamental performance issue with svn rm that gets exacerbated
with slow performance over nfs.

From: Tony Sweeney [mailto:tsweeney@omnifone.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:32 AM
To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1); markphip@gmail.com
Cc: stsp@elego.de; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x


________________________________
From: michael_rytting@agilent.com<mailto:michael_rytting@agilent.com> [mailto:michael_rytting@agilent.com]<mailto:[mailto:michael_rytting@agilent.com]>
Sent: 01 November 2011 17:19
To: markphip@gmail.com<mailto:markphip@gmail.com>
Cc: stsp@elego.de<mailto:stsp@elego.de>; users@subversion.apache.org<mailto:users@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x
Perhaps I wasn't clear, the second set of runs where with a local working copy instead of
an nfs mounted working copy.


What are your NFS mount options?


From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip@gmail.com]<mailto:[mailto:markphip@gmail.com]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:18 AM
To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1)
Cc: stsp@elego.de<mailto:stsp@elego.de>; users@subversion.apache.org<mailto:users@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM, <michael_rytting@agilent.com<mailto:michael_rytting@agilent.com>>
wrote:
LOL!  I love the env variable.

Here is some similar data for a local working copy.  These are all run with the env variable
set.  Again, svn rm is significantly slower than all other operations.

svn rm <file>  0.35s
svn st <file>    0.105s
svn blame  0.041s
svn unlock 0.056s
svn lock      0.053s
svn log   0.036s
svn info 0.014s

But look how much it improved compared to how much the others improved?

svn rm <file>       7s
svn add <file>      0.126s
svn st <file>          2s
svn blame <file> 0.2s
svn lock <file>      0.12s
svn unlock <file> 0.103s
svn log <file>        0.089s
svn revert <file>  0.133s
svn info <file>      0.074s

Many of these commands are not even impacted by that variable.  That said, I do not get how
this envvar can shave 7 seconds off the operation when it usually only sleeps for a second.

--
Thanks

Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
________________________________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1834 / Virus Database: 2092/4589 - Release Date: 11/01/11

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________

Mime
View raw message