On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann >> <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: ... >> > Quite a number of reasons: >> > >> > * easy setup >> > * minimal overhead (I want to get as close to measuring pure >> > FS layer performance as possible) >> > * easy to debug and profile >> >> I get that for development purposes, but I would personally like to >> see that the caching etc. is yielding benefits when HTTP is used. > > > Apache should only add constant overhead, i.e. the > absolute savings should be roughly the same. Once > the cache-server branch is finished, the difference > in cache efficiency & effect between svnserve and > Apache should be gone.
I guess the question is mainly: how much of the caching benefit will be visible to the end-user with mod_dav_svn? Or will it perhaps be "hidden" by overhead of HTTPv2 etc ...? In the first place in a fast LAN (that might be something you can test relatively easily), but secondary also in a WAN ... how much performance improvement remains when executing particular operations ... -- Johan
