On 05.01.2012 01:25, Philip Martin wrote:
Konstantin Kolinko<knst.koli...@gmail.com> writes:
2012/1/5 Stefan Küng<tortoise...@gmail.com>:
Hi,
Due to a report on the TSVN mailing list I found that the CL client has the
same problem:
'svn list' takes forever in some situations.
I don't know what the problem exactly is, but it's easily reproducable:
svn ls http://plugins.svn.wordpress.org/ -v --depth=immediates
prints one entry, then never returns (ok, maybe not never. But waiting 10
minutes is not enough).
however, an
svn ls http://plugins.svn.wordpress.org/ --depth=immediates
(same command as above, but without the verbose flag) returns the entries
almost immediately.
I don't think that simply fetching the verbose info could take so much
longer?
This is with svn 1.7.2.
The same works fine with svn 1.6.6 - haven't tested with later 1.6 svn
clients since I don't have that version ready here on my machine.
using serf instead of neon doesn't help.
http://plugins.svn.wordpress.org/
The page has a lot of subdirectories (nearly 26000)
The server is 1.6.12.
Using client 1.6.17 (built by CollabNet, 32-bit, on Windows) it
printed the first line in 10 seconds, and never printed the rest. I
waited for ~1 minute. (Ctrl+C did not help, I had to unplug the
network cable)
Using client 1.7.2 (from TortoiseSVN, 32-bit, on Windows) the result
is the same:
the first line in ~10 seconds, the rest of data - ~never.
1.6.17: Removing "--depth" option does not change anything.
1.6.17: Removing "-v" the result appears in ~15 seconds and then takes
~10 seconds to print the listing to the console.
I created a repository with 10,000 subdirs:
#!/bin/bash
for i in `seq 0 999`;do
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A${i}{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
done
I measured the following times:
client server ls -v ls
1.6.6 1.6.12 43s 0.3s
1.6.12 1.6.12 43s 0.3s
1.7.3 1.6.12 43s 0.3s
1.6.6 1.7.3 1.8s 0.5s
1.6.12 1.7.3 1.8s 0.4s
1.7.3 1.7.3 1.8s 0.4s
I don't see any significant difference between clients (I'm using neon)
only between the servers. 1.7 is a major improvement in the verbose
case, probably due to the better FSFS in-memory caching. There is
perhaps a slight regression in the non-verbose case.
As a side issue having 26,000 branches in the same directory is really
bad for repository size due to the absence of directory deltification.
My repository has 10,000 subdirs in 1,000 revisions and nothing else and
yet it takes 175MB of disk. The last commit, which adds 10 empty
subdirs, produces a rev file that is 347KB. Each commit to the
wordpress repository probably adds about 1MB to the repository just
rewriting that 26,000 branch directory.
The problem with 1.6.x is that its cache implementation
does not support partial cache access. Thus, ls -v results
in >600 000 000 directory entry copies (> 200GB) and
at least 5 minutes CPU time in the above setup.
In 1.7, the difference between ls and ls -v is dominated
by revprop access (one file per directory as each rev
touches only one wordpress plug-in). Packed revprops
might help here.
-- Stefan^2.
