On 21 September 2015 at 12:53, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: > 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. > I've reverted r1704048 in r1704255. I'll revive 'reuse-ra-session' branch and attempt to fix these problems there someday.
-- Ivan Zhakov
