On 21.02.2013 12:06, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > 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 > ...
This kind of question is IMO too simplistic. The real question is, will 500 simultaneous users see a difference? And I think the only reliable way to get the answer is to find 500 simultaneous users first. :) -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
