On 21.06.2014 17:18, Branko Čibej wrote: > 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.
Ah, actually we're seeing confirmation bias, not observer bias ... yet. :) -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
