On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
>>
>> On 11/8/2010 8:54 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
Paul - 1 more question. What happens when you run additional blame -g
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2010 8:54 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
>>>
>>> Paul - 1 more question. What happens when you run additional blame -g
>>> commands? Does the memory usage keep growing until it r
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
> I posted this on th
On 11/8/2010 8:54 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
Paul - 1 more question. What happens when you run additional blame -g
commands? Does the memory usage keep growing until it runs out of memory or
will it cap itself at some point? In my tests it se
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
> I posted this on th
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
I posted this on the users list, but I'm confident that this is a bug.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
>>> I posted this on the users list, but I'm confident that this is a bug.
>>>
>>> Background:
>>> For a while now (off and on for over
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
>> I posted this on the users list, but I'm confident that this is a bug.
>>
>> Background:
>> For a while now (off and on for over a year, but more frequently in the last
>> 6+ months) we've
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
> I posted this on the users list, but I'm confident that this is a bug.
>
> Background:
> For a while now (off and on for over a year, but more frequently in the last
> 6+ months) we've been having problems with svn "crashing", yet there's no
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Chris Tashjian wrote:
> Paul - I'll see if I can get a test repo up with the error. In the
> meantime, would a copy of the svn:mergeinfo help?
No harm in sending it along, though barring something very odd I don't
hold out much hope it's going to tell us much.
>
Paul Burba writes:
> I recall a similar issue
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3397.
> Unfortunately nothing conclusive came of that.
There is also
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3593
which I suspect is the in-memory-caching added to FSFS in 1.6. I gu
Chris,
I recall a similar issue
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3397.
Unfortunately nothing conclusive came of that.
When I wrap up what I am working on now I will take a look at this.
In the meantime, any chance you could try to reproduce the problem
using a simple test repos
I posted this on the users list, but I'm confident that this is a bug.
Background:
For a while now (off and on for over a year, but more frequently in the
last 6+ months) we've been having problems with svn "crashing", yet
there's no error in the log file. In talking to someone the users list
13 matches
Mail list logo
