Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0882D7A90 for ; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:39:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 46419 invoked by uid 500); 1 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 46403 invoked by uid 500); 1 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 46392 invoked by uid 99); 1 Nov 2011 17:39:33 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:39:33 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [192.25.218.39] (HELO aglcosbs02.cos.agilent.com) (192.25.218.39) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Nov 2011 17:39:25 +0000 Received: from 2k7hubs.agilent.com (cos-us-ht01.agilent.com [130.29.28.11]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aglcosbs02.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4168B91D4; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 17:39:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cos-us-mb12.agilent.com ([130.29.28.44]) by cos-us-ht01.agilent.com ([130.29.28.11]) with mapi; Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:39:04 -0600 From: To: , CC: , Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2011 11:39:02 -0600 Subject: RE: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x Thread-Topic: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x Thread-Index: AcyYuikl30FJmlxZSQSMkHmE3YOxqgAABGVwAAB2BCAAABDfkA== Message-ID: References: <20111031154444.GF14858@ted.stsp.name><20111101084921.GB32398@ted.stsp.name><20111101143505.GE32398@ted.stsp.name><20111101170007.GG32398@ted.stsp.name> <9B21F0BBE52BF74DBA71AB889C021DD706FDD6C9@exisland01.omnifone.com> In-Reply-To: <9B21F0BBE52BF74DBA71AB889C021DD706FDD6C9@exisland01.omnifone.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B9DACE0D88F57F458EAEB9B2083FFE0D033054B069cosusmb12agil_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.3 at aglcosbs02.cos.agilent.com X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --_000_B9DACE0D88F57F458EAEB9B2083FFE0D033054B069cosusmb12agil_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'd have to do some research to get the options. It's a proprietary filesy= stem. That being said, I understand that nfs mounted working copies will degrade = my performance. I really think this is a more fundamental performance issu= e 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 [mail= to:michael_rytting@agilent.com] Sent: 01 November 2011 17:19 To: markphip@gmail.com Cc: stsp@elego.de; 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 c= opy instead of an nfs mounted working copy. What are your NFS mount options? From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:18 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: stsp@elego.de; users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM, > 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 othe= r operations. svn rm 0.35s svn st 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 7s svn add 0.126s svn st 2s svn blame 0.2s svn lock 0.12s svn unlock 0.103s svn log 0.089s svn revert 0.133s svn info 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 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 ______________________________________________________________________ --_000_B9DACE0D88F57F458EAEB9B2083FFE0D033054B069cosusmb12agil_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I’d= have to do some research to get the options.  It’s a proprietar= y filesystem.

 <= /o:p>

That being said, I understand t= hat nfs mounted working copies will degrade my performance.  I really = think this is a more fundamental performance issue with svn rm that gets ex= acerbated 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,ex= 1); 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_rytti= ng@agilent.com]
Sent: 01 November 2011 17:19
To: <= a href=3D"mailto:markphip@gmail.com">markphip@gmail.com
Cc: <= a href=3D"mailto:stsp@elego.de">stsp@elego.de; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: R= E: 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 c= opy. 

 

 

What are your NFS mount options?

 

 

From:<= span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Mark Phi= ppard [mailto:markphip@gmail= .com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:18 AM
To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1)
Cc: stsp@elego.de; = users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Apparent "svn r= m" scaling problem in 1.7.x

=  

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM, &= lt;michael_rytting@agilent.c= om> wrote:

LOL= !  I love the env variable.

Here is some similar data for a loc= al working copy.  These are all run with the env variable set.  A= gain, svn rm is significantly slower than all other operations.

svn = rm <file>  0.35s
svn st <file>    0.105s
s= vn 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 improv= ed?  

 <= /p>

svn rm <file>       7s=
svn add= <file>      0.126s
svn st <file>   &= nbsp;      2s
svn blame <file> 0.2s
svn lo= ck <file>      0.12s
svn unlock <file> 0.1= 03s
svn log <file>        0.089s
svn = revert <file>  0.133s
svn info <file>     =  0.074s

 

Many of these com= mands 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.

&n= bsp;

--
Thanks

Mark Ph= ippard
http://markphip.blogspo= t.com/


_________________________= _____________________________________________
This email has been scanne= d by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please = visit http://www.messagelabs.c= om/email
__________________________________________________________= ____________

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AV= G - 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 Securi= ty System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
________________= ______________________________________________________

= = --_000_B9DACE0D88F57F458EAEB9B2083FFE0D033054B069cosusmb12agil_--