Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-02-18 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Philip Martin > wrote: > >> Stefan Fuhrmann writes: >> >> > Apache configuration (~1GB cache, mpm-worker): >> > >> > SVNInMemoryCacheSize 100 >> > SVNCacheFullTexts On >> > SVNCacheTextDeltas On >> > SVNCacheRevProps On >> >

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-02-18 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > > > Apache configuration (~1GB cache, mpm-worker): > > > > SVNInMemoryCacheSize 100 > > SVNCacheFullTexts On > > SVNCacheTextDeltas On > > SVNCacheRevProps On > > SVNCompressionLevel 0 > > I see no me

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-02-18 Thread Philip Martin
Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > Apache configuration (~1GB cache, mpm-worker): > > SVNInMemoryCacheSize 100 > SVNCacheFullTexts On > SVNCacheTextDeltas On > SVNCacheRevProps On > SVNCompressionLevel 0 I see no mention of tuning the BDB repository. There are several things you can tweak

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-02-16 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 5:02 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > If we're going to force existing BDB users onto something else, they should > expect real benefit from that change. I don't want their decision-making > to > boil down to choosing amongst a) enduring a dump/load process for no > perceiv

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-17 Thread Branko Čibej
On 07.01.2013 17:02, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > The Berkeley DB backend does have a finite lifespan, the end of which is > (hopefully) approaching. But I submit that the appropriate time to pull the > plug is when we introduce a compatibility-breaking new FS concept -- the > sort that would force

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 01/07/2013 10:07 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > Nevertheless the situation we have now is what it is. I see only two > ways forward: stop supporting BDB (eventually), or invest serious effort > into making it competitive. If we decide for the latter, it should be > for good reasons; maintaining two b

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread Branko Čibej
On 07.01.2013 15:52, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 01/07/2013 06:12 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato > > wrote: >> >> hosted elsewhere for them. The BDB backend (thanks to improvements to >> the >> Berkeley DB li

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 01/07/2013 06:12 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato > wrote: > > hosted elsewhere for them. The BDB backend (thanks to improvements to the > Berkeley DB library itself) is much more stable today than it was when

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 12:50:55 +0100: > On 07.01.2013 12:46, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Which points out that when we next rewrite the FS library, we should > > re-draw the link between libsvn_fs and libsvn_fs_foo > > Agreed. > > > --- in a manner that avoids us having to impl

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread Branko Čibej
On 07.01.2013 12:46, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Which points out that when we next rewrite the FS library, we should > re-draw the link between libsvn_fs and libsvn_fs_foo Agreed. > --- in a manner that avoids us having to implement all > these little features for each backend separately... ... but

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 15:51:16 +0100: > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:27:09 +0100: > > > Caching is part of the FSFS backend. One would assume that a key-value > > > database like BDB would have its ow

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > hosted elsewhere for them. The BDB backend (thanks to improvements to the > Berkeley DB library itself) is much more stable today than it was when we > first started this project, so it's quite possible that we don't hear noise > That's

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-07 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > Caching is part of the FSFS backend. One would assume that a key-value > database like BDB would have its own cache, which is therefore > implicitly part of the BDB back-end. It's not directly comparable to the FSFS in-memory cache but BDB does have a cache. The performan

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 01/06/2013 05:27 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > > As Lieven says -- FSFS has been steadily improving while BDB was > > standing still these last 6 years. IMO, if there were enough users of > > the BDB back-end to matter, we'd have been given

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 01/06/2013 05:27 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > As Lieven says -- FSFS has been steadily improving while BDB was > standing still these last 6 years. IMO, if there were enough users of > the BDB back-end to matter, we'd have been given incentive (through bad > language on users@ ...) to do more than

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:27:09 +0100: > > On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote: > > > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer... > > > > > > In what way are you then comparing the backends? > >

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:27:09 +0100: > On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote: > > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer... > > > > In what way are you then comparing the backends? > > > > You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend with

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote: > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer... > > In what way are you then comparing the backends? > > You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching. > > I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread Lieven Govaerts
Hi, On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer... > > In what way are you then comparing the backends? > > You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching. > > I’m not against dropping support, but if

RE: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-06 Thread Bert Huijben
The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer... In what way are you then comparing the backends? You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching. I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we should do it for the right reasons, not by using skewed n

Re: BDB vs FSFS - OMG!

2013-01-05 Thread Branko Čibej
On 06.01.2013 03:01, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Hey there, Thanks for taking time to do the measurements, Stefan! > So, I did some measurement based with a mirror of the boost repository. > That is a 82,362 revs, 971,599 changes repository mainly containing > source code. It is surprising how much