On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 7:52 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >... > +++ subversion/branches/reuse-ra-session/BRANCH-README Tue Feb 3 01:52:26 > 2015 > @@ -8,12 +8,19 @@ all changes made in the branch. > > STATUS > ====== > -+ Initial implementation > -- Do not call svn_ra_* methods in find_session_by_url() because callback > - table may be destroyed at that time. > + > +done: > +- Initial implementation. > +- Separate active and inactive session lists. > + > +todo: > +- Fix timeout in davautocheck tests at log_tests.py::log_diff_moved. > +- Limit the number of unused open sessions. > +- Run performance comparisons between trunk and branch to prove that > + the RA session cache does in fact speed things up. >
This is the part that I wonder about. If we had 1000 sessions, then I *might* start to believe a separation would be interesting. A cache of sessions: sure; that's why we already had a cache. But to split that apart and keep multiple lists? Did you have an indicator somewhere that this split could help? That "get me a connected RA session" was somehow noticeably slow, relative to a simple iteration sessions? Thanks, -g
