On 15.11.2012 16:09, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> On 11/15/2012 08:49 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>> Sure it can be done via config directives:
>>> just set an env var whenever some request
>>> is inconsequential and server admins can
>>> con
On 11/15/2012 10:09 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> When I do a GET using a web browser or wget, the logged request is for
> something like:
>
> /svn/repos/trunk/foo.txt
>
> But when I do a checkout using Serf, the logged request is for something like:
>
> /svn/repos/!svn/ver/2/trunk/foo.txt
>
> Cou
On 15.11.2012 15:49, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 08:08 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> You may have a point there. The next question is, why would anyone want
>> to base64-encode a response to a simple GET? Seems like unnecessary work
>> for no good reason.
> I'm pretty sure we don't base64
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:00 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 08:49 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>> Sure it can be done via config directives:
>> just set an env var whenever some request
>> is inconsequential and server admins can
>> configure their logging to ignore that request.
>> We a
On 11/15/2012 08:49 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Sure it can be done via config directives:
> just set an env var whenever some request
> is inconsequential and server admins can
> configure their logging to ignore that request.
> We already do that for svn operation logging.
I've been considering th
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/15/2012 08:08 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > You may have a point there. The next question is, why would anyone want
> > to base64-encode a response to a simple GET? Seems like unnecessary work
> > for no good reason.
>
> I'm pretty su
On 11/15/2012 08:08 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> You may have a point there. The next question is, why would anyone want
> to base64-encode a response to a simple GET? Seems like unnecessary work
> for no good reason.
I'm pretty sure we don't base64 our GET responses.
--
C. Michael Pilato
CollabNe
o: Branko Čibej
>Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
>Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:38 AM
>Subject: Re: [Issue 3980] serf increases server load
>
>On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Question: Can we somehow mark those GETs as "less interesting&quo
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Question: Can we somehow mark those GETs as "less interesting" so that
> they can be filtered out of a normal access.log for higher-granularity
> debugging?
I do not believe it can be done via configuration directives.
However, it seems that
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 15.11.2012 14:20, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> I thought the latest results show that Serf uses less server CPU? So
>> why are we still discussing this aspect? I guess we can stil make
>> Serf better here, but it is already better than Neon if
On 15.11.2012 14:20, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I thought the latest results show that Serf uses less server CPU? So
> why are we still discussing this aspect? I guess we can stil make
> Serf better here, but it is already better than Neon if this is the
> measuring stick.
>
> If mod_deflate is not u
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 12.11.2012 19:46, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> Any idea why a 1.8 client would use more than twice the amount of
>>> data of 1.7? It should send out less requests than a 1.7 client;
>>> es
On 15.11.2012 13:38, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 12.11.2012 19:46, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
Any idea why a 1.8 client would use more than twice the amount of
data of 1.7? It sh
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 12.11.2012 19:46, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> >> Any idea why a 1.8 client would use more than twice the amount of
> >> data of 1.7? It should send out less requests than a 1.7 client;
>
On 12.11.2012 19:46, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> Any idea why a 1.8 client would use more than twice the amount of
>> data of 1.7? It should send out less requests than a 1.7 client;
>> especially to a 1.8 server where we avoid property requests.
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
>
> >> > Using serf 1.1.x@1691 and subversion trunk@1408335 as 1.8.
> >> > Using 1.7.7 with neon as 1.7.
> >> > Using subversion trunk as my dataset.
> >> >
> >> > The server CPU and bandwidth to service one checkout:
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
>> > Using serf 1.1.x@1691 and subversion trunk@1408335 as 1.8.
>> > Using 1.7.7 with neon as 1.7.
>> > Using subversion trunk as my dataset.
>> >
>> > The server CPU and bandwidth to service one checkout:
>> >
>> > 1.7 neon client, 1.7 server
>> > 3.6s, 21.4MB
>> >
>> > 1
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: phi...@tigris.org [mailto:phi...@tigris.org]
> > Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 18:59
> > To: iss...@subversion.tigris.org
> > Subject: [Issue 3980] ser
On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: phi...@tigris.org [mailto:phi...@tigris.org]
>> Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 18:59
>> To: iss...@subversion.tigris.org
>> Subject: [Issue 3980] s
> -Original Message-
> From: phi...@tigris.org [mailto:phi...@tigris.org]
> Sent: maandag 12 november 2012 18:59
> To: iss...@subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: [Issue 3980] serf increases server load
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues
20 matches
Mail list logo
