On 20.06.2014 11:22, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 19 June 2014 17:06, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrm...@wandisco.com> wrote: >> Turn out that the ruby repo is something special >> in that it has very deep histories of relatively few, >> very small files combined with one huge changelog >> file (the latter taking up ~75% of the repo). See >> below for details. >> >> Also, please note that your exports contained >>> 500000 files. Using 16MB of cache with that >> project size *may* not be an adequate setup. >> Upping that to insane 256MB (roughly what 1.6 >> would use anyway), gives much better numbers. >> However, there is hardly a difference between >> f6 and f7 in these runs. >> >> Here my measurements with svn: under Linux: >> > There is still misleading information about real fsfs7 performance: > 1. You're comparing fsfs7 packed vs fsfs6 packed and do not provide > data for fsfs6/fsfs7 unpacked. I already demonstrated you that fsfs6 > unpacked (default) is dramatically faster with defaults options. > > 2. You're still testing svn:// protocol only. And you even don't > bother to test http:// protocol, while I demonstrated you 10 times > performance degradation on the same test data. > > Also I don't see anything special with repositories with deep > histories: that's pretty typical for source code.
I have to agree with Ivan on the topic of comparing performance measurements. Let's try to get rid of observer bias here, please. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
