Could you remind what optimizations those are? Are you suggesting that they could be pushed down into the svn_ra_replay() implementations?
Thanks, Daniel Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 21:28:31 +0400: > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 21:20, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I thought I recalled when svnrdump was first created that there were some > > timing comparisons made with svnsync that showed it to be faster at doing a > > full dump/sync of a remote repository. When I test via HTTP: > > svnrdump dump http://server/repos | svnadmin load repos > > And compare this to an equivalent svnsync, I find that the times it takes to > > do this is essentially the same. I then compared the HTTP access logs of > > the server and see that the two commands produce identical logs, so > > obviously there are not going to be big performance differences. > > Am I missing something? I realize that svnrdump still fulfills a need, so I > > am not questioning the value of the tool. Just questioning whether my > > results make sense. As I see it, for this specific scenario, someone would > > be better off to still simply use svnsync for this purpose. > I made some performance optimizations in svnsync. Probably these > optimization also makes sense for svnrdump. Maybe this explains the > difference. > > -- > Ivan Zhakov
