On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Moe, Mark wrote:
>> I rewrote some parts of the commit processing on trunk last week, which
>> should have a positive effect on the use cases reported in this thread.
>
>> Is it possible for somebody to see what the performance difference on NFS
>> is?
>
> Does thi
> I rewrote some parts of the commit processing on trunk last week, which
> should have a positive effect on the use cases reported in this thread.
> Is it possible for somebody to see what the performance difference on NFS
> is?
Does this include Phillip's patch
(http://subversion.tigris.org/is
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 4 mei 2012 21:15
> To: Moe, Mark
> Cc: Philip Martin; dev@subversion.apache.org; Braun, Eric
> Subject: Re: svn ci performance issue with 1.7.x and nfs mounted working
> copies
>
>
> Well... your interest has already been noted :-) Maybe you're asking
> how you can help get the bug fixed? Volunteering, of course (as we all
> are).
...
> If you're not talking about digging into the code yourself, then... I
> dunno. Maybe one of the Subversion vendors is willing to do spot f
> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; dev@subversion.apache.org; Braun, Eric
> Subject: Re: svn ci performance issue with 1.7.x and nfs mounted working
> copies
>
> "Moe, Mark" writes:
>
>> Can this patch be marked as an issue or enhancement idea?
>
> I've raised http://subv
To: Moe, Mark
Cc: Daniel Shahaf; dev@subversion.apache.org; Braun, Eric
Subject: Re: svn ci performance issue with 1.7.x and nfs mounted working copies
"Moe, Mark" writes:
> Can this patch be marked as an issue or enhancement idea?
I've raised http://subversion.tigris.org/issu
"Moe, Mark" writes:
> Can this patch be marked as an issue or enhancement idea?
I've raised http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4176
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com
ay 01, 2012 2:34 PM
To: Daniel Shahaf
Cc: Moe, Mark; dev@subversion.apache.org; Braun, Eric
Subject: Re: svn ci performance issue with 1.7.x and nfs mounted working copies
Philip Martin writes:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
>> What patch are you talking about? I don't recall seeing a
Here are some quick benchmarks with our environment of the improvement the
patch provides.
1.7.4 1.7.4-patch
svn co 8m24s 4m8s
svn st 13.3s 3.2s
svn ci 1m31s 4.1s
svn rm * 1.85s 6.3s
svn revert 46.6s 4.0s
Seems to me that the default behavior should be to ena
Philip Martin writes:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
>> What patch are you talking about? I don't recall seeing a patch on list
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-02/0413.shtml
>
> It executes the SQLite statement "pragma locking_mode = exclusive" after
> opening wc.db.
We can't simply commit
> I don't really know how to proceed. The performance gains are huge
> on NFS and it's hard to see any other way to fix the 1.7 regression.
> We could sacrifice concurrency for performance and enable it all the
> time, essentially deciding that this is the way that WCNG will use
> SQLite.
I don't
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> What patch are you talking about? I don't recall seeing a patch on list
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-02/0413.shtml
It executes the SQLite statement "pragma locking_mode = exclusive" after
opening wc.db.
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN
Moe, Mark wrote on Tue, May 01, 2012 at 10:33:36 -0500:
> Yes, I tried it and it was very effective! See below:
>
> 1.6.17 1.7.4 1.7.4-patched
> NFS benchmark*1534s 4074s 572s
> Local benchmark* 365s162s
Behalf Of Philip Martin
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:19 AM
To: Moe, Mark
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn ci performance issue with 1.7.x and nfs mounted working copies
Mark Moe writes:
> This is a big deal for us too. Will there be a configuration setting in an
> official svn
"Moe, Mark" writes:
> Yes, I tried it and it was very effective! See below:
>
> 1.6.17 1.7.4 1.7.4-patched
> NFS benchmark*1534s 4074s 572s
> Local benchmark* 365s162s118s
> NFS svn co29
Mark Moe writes:
> This is a big deal for us too. Will there be a configuration setting in an
> official svn 1.7.x version that we can use to enable the exclusive lock mode
> for SQLite? (assuming that is a valid fix for this issue)
Are you able to try a patch and tell us how effective it is?
This is a big deal for us too. Will there be a configuration setting in an
official svn 1.7.x version that we can use to enable the exclusive lock mode
for SQLite? (assuming that is a valid fix for this issue)
As it is Subversion 1.6 was slow on NFS for us and 1.7 is even worse. But,
our IT de
-ColSprings,ex1); dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: svn ci performance issue with 1.7.x and nfs mounted working copies
[Philip Martin]
> That will be because commit does one or more SQLite transactions
> per-node, while status has been optimised to do fewer per-directory
> transacti
[Philip Martin]
> That will be because commit does one or more SQLite transactions
> per-node, while status has been optimised to do fewer per-directory
> transactions. The number of SQLite transactions is what dominates
> Subversion working copy performance on network disks. By running
> commit
writes:
> If I run "svn ci" from the root of my working copy it takes 1m11s to
> complete. However if I instead run
>
> cd
> svn st
> cd subdir
> svn ci
> cd
> svn up
>
> That whole set of commands takes 16s to run. The actual change I am
> committing is adding or deleting a single line of a
20 matches
Mail list logo
