On 31 January 2014 14:57, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: > On 31 January 2014 05:50, Evgeny Kotkov <evgeny.kot...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >>> This only affects non-sharded repositories with rev-local IDs, >>> i.e. those in SVN 1.4 format. For those, it is writing 3 files >>> instead of 2 per rev now. >> >> I assume you are talking about r1560723 [1]. If I read the code correctly... >> [[[ >> if ( (!max_files_per_dir || rev % max_files_per_dir == 0) >> && dst_ffd->format >= SVN_FS_FS__MIN_NO_GLOBAL_IDS_FORMAT) >> SVN_ERR(hotcopy_update_current(&dst_youngest, dst_fs, rev, >> iterpool)); >> ]]] >> >> ...hotcopy now checkpoints after every revision for all non-sharded >> repositories >> with FSFS format >= 3. So, checkpointing happens for all FSFS format 1/2 >> repositories upgraded via 'svnadmin upgrade' (with linear layout), that were >> not fsfs-reshard'ed or dump/loaded into a repository with newer format. >> >> I am not aware of how many people reshard or dump/load their old repositories >> after upgrade, but I did a quick benchmark for a real-world repository and >> on my >> machine it shows 7x performance degradation with checkpointing enabled. Is >> it >> worth the ability to re-run the backup from a checkpoint upon cancellation? >> >> [[[ >> # svnrdump http://googletest.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ >> # load the dump into a --compatible-version=1.3 repository >> # upgrade the repository with the most recent svnadmin >> >> # disable checkpointing, benchmark making 100 hotcopy backups: >> real 0m18.741s >> user 0m2.552s >> sys 0m13.432s >> >> # now enable checkpointing and repeat the benchmark: >> real 2m5.793s >> user 0m0.836s >> sys 0m34.840s >> ]]] >> >> [1] http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=r1560723 >> > That's what I suspected. In this case I think r1560723 should not be > backported to 1.8.x for the following reasons: > 1. Significant performance degradation for 'svnadmin hotcopy' with > '--incremental' flag. > 2. The change doesn't fix original circular dependency problem in FSFS > 3. 'svnadmin recover' writes fake value to CURRENT file which very bad > practice IMHO and could lead undefined consequences. > Hi Stefan,
Is this problem fixed or it's better to revert r1560723 for reasons I stated above? -- Ivan Zhakov
