On 21 September 2015 at 12:47, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 20.09.2015 09:40, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On 20 September 2015 at 00:53, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >>> On 19.09.2015 19:20, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>> On 19 September 2015 at 17:24, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >>>>> On 19 September 2015 at 14:03, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> On 19.09.2015 13:12, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>>>> On 18 September 2015 at 12:49, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:41:41PM +0200, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>>>>>> That branch is complete and ready for merging, but I'm still not sure >>>>>>>>> whether we should merge it or not. >>>>>>>> I think we should merge it to trunk now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think this branch can improve much further unless we start >>>>>>>> exercising the code ourselves to see how well it's working for us. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ANd I believe it's hard to tell whether these changes provide an >>>>>>>> actual benefit in practice without running the code for a while. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I like the debug and profiling functionality. >>>>>>>> This should make it easy to tune the system going forward. >>>>>>> Ok. It seems people here generally support 'reuse-ra-session' branch >>>>>>> concept. So I'm going to merge this branch to trunk and see how it >>>>>>> will work. >>>>>> +1 >>>>> Merged to trunk in r1704048. >>>>> >>>> The r1704048 broke JavaHL tests. >>>> >>>> This happens because JavaHL bindings changes content of AUTH_BATON >>>> field in svn_client_ctx_t between diferent svn_client_*() invocations. >>>> While RA session in RA session pool references AUTH_BATON from first >>>> invocation. >>>> >>>> The most interesting question is it allowed by our API or not? >>> Unfortunately, I'd say it is because none of the API docs say otherwise. >>> Or at least I can't find any. >>> >> I also couldn't find any of them :( >> >>>> If it's not allowed we just need to fix JavaHL to use the same AUTH_BATON. >>> I think the most interesting question here is: why is JavaHL doing this >>> in the first place? I have to confess I've no idea, offhand. >>> >> I also have no idea, but I was sort of hoping that you could provide >> some insight on this part :) >> >> Anyway, as we are doing this kind of things ourselves in JavaHL, there >> could be other API users that are also doing it, and we will probably >> break them unless we revv the API. > > Here's one more data point that has nothing to do with JavaHL: The > svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder started failing after the merge: > > https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-macosx-bdb/builds/253/steps/Test%20ra_local%2Bbdb/logs/faillog > Yup, I've seen it. This one seems to be caused by too many BDB handles opened due parallel run or something. Anyway I'm currently working on revertng r1704048: it's clear that code is not ready for prime time and it's not obvious how to fix even known problems.
-- Ivan Zhakov
