On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:16 PM, Neels Hofmeyr <ne...@elego.de> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 05:23:14PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 07.07.2014 17:07, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> > On 07/07/2014 10:58 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> >> My technical opinion that FSFS7/log addressing is slower by design, >> >> because it's doing more (read index, then read data instead of just >> >> read data) and only caching makes them comparable on performance to >> >> FSFS6 repositories. >> > I'm coming into this kinda late and after two weeks of vacation, so >> > please forgive me if I misunderstand the above, but is it true that >> > FSFS7 requires some kind of non-trivial caching just to match FSFS6's >> > performance? >> >> Yup. > > <from the off> > Sounds bad, but then again I remember that wc-ng's projected performance > boost over 1.6 has not been evident from the start, either. > "It's what you make of it" ??
Well, given that the detailed results for Windows are in now as well, the key bits are * from hot SVN caches, there is no difference between f6 and f7 * from hot OS caches, it's a mixed bag and depends on various factors * reading from disk, f7 is faster for packed repos even with default configs * "block-read" doubles the relative speedup but requires larger caches -- Stefan^2.
