> Can you guys dig a little bit deeper here? Seems the performance > regression that Ivan is seeing deserves some more investigation. With > Ivan testing http: (and file:) on Windows, and Stefan testing svn: on > Linux (with different cache settings) it's hard to see where the > regression comes from.
There are the following main factors that lead to performance regressions: * log addressing adds two additional files for each revision file (that is obviously not good for unpacked repositories), * the whole design relies on the enormous cache size (comparable to the size of the repository itself). > Right now, the numbers might just as well indicate that f7 is fast on > Linux but slow on Windows. Or that it's only fast with svn: but slow > with http:. That would be "not good". The numbers do not depend on operating system so much. Stefan Sperling has results that shows performance degradation on OpenBSD too. From what I see, FSFS7 may be fast when repository is packed and there is an enormous cache size. It is slow when repository is unpacked (default) and cache size if adequate (default). -- Ivan Zhakov
