On Tuesday 20 December 2005 04:07, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > >On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:17:56 +0900 Kalin KOZHUHAROV > > > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > | As far as speed is concerned, it is comparable with CVS. > > > >Be more specific please. We're looking for benchmarks showing how well > >it performs in terms of speed, bandwidth and memory usage for actions > >such as commit and update on a repository with 100k+ small files. > > I have hardware on which I would be more than willing to perform this > type of benchmark. Can you provide/point to a repository of files to > benchmark, and a set of operations to perform? The obvious being the > portage tree itself, with some/all of its history (however much is > necessary for the benchmarks to be meaningful), but would require a set > of activities to generate a relevant benchmark. > > For reference, I have a server that is not yet in production, but > readying for production in the next few months, running Gentoo, on a > raid-5 array of SCSI harddrives. I don't remember the precise > specifications off hand, but I could provide them along with the results. > > Would this be useful? Would more/other hardware be necessary useful? (I > have access to multiple workstations on which I could run simultaneous > tests, causing transactions to become relevant and important, etc etc, > and further hardware might be available here.) Hope this can be of some > use to you in trying to make this evaluation.
In this respect we want to know things like: - Checkout time of a full new tree (no load, and with load) - Update time (without load, and with load) - Concurrency performance (how do multiple simultaneous commits and updates perform) - Is there a difference between checking out and committing parts of the tree instead of the full tree. Paul -- Paul de Vrieze Gentoo Developer Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
pgpBp1EOexMeB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
