On 2013-01-05 10:35:52 +, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
> > * The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS
> > o timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac:
> > + FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
> >
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> Interesting that i's that much slower on the Mac. But considering my
>> numbers:
>>
>> * FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
>> * BDB: real 35m17.766s, user 15m28.395s, sys 11m58.824s
>>
>> Notic
Branko Čibej writes:
> Interesting that i's that much slower on the Mac. But considering my
> numbers:
>
> * FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
> * BDB: real 35m17.766s, user 15m28.395s, sys 11m58.824s
>
> Notice that the sys and user times are comparable, yet real-time is a
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> > So, we can passively support it for a while from now on and even
> > properly maintain it (bug fixes) without the expectation of that
> > being too costly.
>
> I think that the costs o
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 22:32:14 +0100:
> > One thing I /don't/ know is what percentage of the Subversion installed
> > base (in both number of repositories and repository size) falls to BDB.
> > Does anyone have any idea ab
Branko Čibej wrote on Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 22:32:14 +0100:
> One thing I /don't/ know is what percentage of the Subversion installed
> base (in both number of repositories and repository size) falls to BDB.
> Does anyone have any idea about that?
I think it'd be a good idea to poll users@, althoug
On 05.01.2013 21:36, Ben Reser wrote:
> Unless of course 1.9 comes faster than other versions have.
:)
I probably should've written "1 year" and "2 years" instead of "1.9" and
"1.10" then.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
On 05.01.2013 11:35, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> * The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS
>> o timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac:
>> + FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
>> + BDB: re
+1
-Hyrum
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> +1! -- justin
> On Jan 5, 2013 10:40 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
>> Is "+1" too short of a response?
>>
>> :-)
>> On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>>
>>> For the following reasons
>>>
>>>- FSFS has been the
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> I think that the costs of continuing to have it around is probably
> higher than you're thinking. This is someone we all spend time on
> having BDB around, dealing with build system support for it, and
> ultimately running the tests before relea
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> So, we can passively support it for a while from now on and even
> properly maintain it (bug fixes) without the expectation of that
> being too costly.
I think that the costs of continuing to have it around is probably
higher than you're th
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Declare the BDB backend deprecated in 1.8, adding appropriate warnings when
> it's used or manipulated (to svnadmin?)
>
> Stop supporting it (including bug fixes) in 1.9
>
> Completely remove the BDB-related code in 1.10 (I'm making an assumpti
+1! -- justin
On Jan 5, 2013 10:40 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
> Is "+1" too short of a response?
>
> :-)
> On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>
>> For the following reasons
>>
>>- FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
>>since 1.2.
>>
>> - Looking
Is "+1" too short of a response?
:-)
On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
> For the following reasons
>
>- FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
>since 1.2.
>
> - Looking at commit history, I've not seen a single (functional or
>performance) i
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> For the following reasons
>
>- FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
>since 1.2.
>
> That only makes it feasible but is not a reason in itself to
not support other backends as well.
>
>-
>- Looking
Branko Čibej writes:
> * The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS
> o timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac:
> + FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
> + BDB: real 35m17.766s, user 15m28.395s, sys 11m58.824s
I
For the following reasons
* FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
since 1.2.
* Looking at commit history, I've not seen a single (functional or
performance) improvement, beyond a few bug fixes, in the BDB backend
in at least two years. The last significa
17 matches
Mail list logo
