Phippard [markp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 18:13
To: Ketting, Michael
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Mark Phippard
mailto:markp...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Au
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ketting, Michael <
> michael.kett...@rubicon.eu> wrote:
>
>
>> Our repository is open source, so, in case you believe it helps with
>> benchmarking/finding the bottleneck, you're welcome to exporting the tru
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ketting, Michael <
michael.kett...@rubicon.eu> wrote:
> Our repository is open source, so, in case you believe it helps with
> benchmarking/finding the bottleneck, you're welcome to exporting the trunk (
> https://svn.re-motion.org/svn/Remotion/trunk/) and creatin
st 11, 2011 12:52
To: Ketting, Michael; dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
A completely different question:
Do you have a recent TortoiseSVN (TSvnCache.exe) running while checking out for
those tests?
I just ruined a testr
ubject: RE: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
Bert, you can access the repository here, in case you want to take a closer
look: https://svn.re-motion.org/svn/Remotion/trunk/
> What about svn:needs-lock?
No, don't have any locked files.
> svn:eol
...@qqmail.nl]
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 12:01
To: Ketting, Michael; dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
Can you tell a bit more about this ‘worst case’ working copy?
Does it use svn:keywords in many places?
What about svn:ne
.eu]
Sent: donderdag 11 augustus 2011 10:54
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
Just a bit more information:
I've now also tried the chekcout tests with other other big trunks in our
company:
One took 7min (svn 1.6) v
y own project really is the worst case scenario :)
Regards, Michael
From: Mark Phippard [markp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 17:05
To: Ketting, Michael
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.
Ketting, Michael
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
"Ketting, Michael" writes:
> Those are interesting numbers, Philip. When you say local repository,
> you're talking about localhost, but still usin
"Ketting, Michael" writes:
> Those are interesting numbers, Philip. When you say local repository,
> you're talking about localhost, but still using HTTP? I'm curious
> about the actual timing since you got the same ratio as long as you
> used a physical disk but had an overall speed improvement
.@wandisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 22:01
To: Ketting, Michael
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
"Ketting, Michael" writes:
> I've recently picked up the subversion 1.7 beta 2 build (included in
__
From: Johan Corveleyn [jcor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 21:31
To: Ketting, Michael
Cc: Mark Phippard; dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
1.7b2
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 16:51, Branko Čibej wrote:
>...
> Likely to be working copy performance, then. I'll bet sqlite commits
> dominate the client end of the checkout time in 1.7.
I wouldn't be surprised. I seem to recall a basic rule of something
like "50 commits per second". And we make at le
On 10.08.2011 22:01, Philip Martin wrote:
> "Ketting, Michael" writes:
>
>> I've recently picked up the subversion 1.7 beta 2 build (included in
>> the latest TortoiseSVN beta) and did a checkout of our solution
>> (~10,000 files, ~2,000 folders, ~180MB). With Subversion 1.6.1, it
>> takes roughl
"Ketting, Michael" writes:
> I've recently picked up the subversion 1.7 beta 2 build (included in
> the latest TortoiseSVN beta) and did a checkout of our solution
> (~10,000 files, ~2,000 folders, ~180MB). With Subversion 1.6.1, it
> takes roughly 5 minutes, with Subversion 1.7 beta 2, it takes
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
Just a thought: do you have any anti-virus or other background
> scanning software active on the client during these tests? If so,
> could you try to rerun the tests without it? It's conceivable that
> some types of anti-virus have more impa
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ketting, Michael
> wrote:
>>
>> Here're the test results for the basic merge repository:
>>
>> Subversion 1.7.0 Beta 3, binaries from collabnet
>> Basic Tests:
>> | 1.7.0-beta3 | r | 0:54.539 | 0:47.7
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Ketting, Michael <
michael.kett...@rubicon.eu> wrote:
> Here're the test results for the basic merge repository:
>
> Subversion 1.7.0 Beta 3, binaries from collabnet
> Basic Tests:
> | 1.7.0-beta3 | r | 0:54.539 | 0:47.774 | 0:00.214 | 0:00.075 |
> 0:00.101
Update/Commit isn't an issue any longer.
Please see my other reply for my benchmark results.
Regards, Michael
From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markp...@gmail.com]
Sent: Dienstag, 09. August 2011 20:20
To: Ketting, Michael
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Significant checkout perfor
Here're the test results for the basic merge repository:
Subversion 1.7.0 Beta 3, binaries from collabnet
Basic Tests:
| 1.7.0-beta3 | r | 0:54.539 | 0:47.774 | 0:00.214 | 0:00.075 |
0:00.101 | 0:01.187 | 0:01.365
Merge Tests:
| 1.7.0-beta3 | r | 0:08.154 | 0:08.984 | 0:08.402 |
rk Phippard [mailto:markp...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Dienstag, 09. August 2011 17:52
> To: Ketting, Michael
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1
> and 1.7b2
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Ketting, Michael
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Ketting, Michael wrote:
> I've recently picked up the subversion 1.7 beta 2 build (included in the
> latest TortoiseSVN beta) and did a checkout of our solution (~10,000 files,
> ~2,000 folders, ~180MB).
> With Subversion 1.6.1, it takes roughly 5 minutes, with Su
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Ketting, Michael wrote:
> Hi Mark!
>
> Yes, I'm using HTTP. Well, HTTPS, but from the rest of your response, that
> looks like a minor detail.
>
> This tidbit about the library is interesting news. I just did a bit of
> mailing-list research on this subject.
> How
egards, Michael
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: Dienstag, 09. August 2011 12:16
> To: Ketting, Michael
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1
> and 1.7b2
>
>
; To: Ketting, Michael; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1
> and 1.7b2
>
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ketting, Michael [mailto:michael.kett...@rubicon.eu]
> > Sent: dinsdag 9 augustus 2011 10:1
ing, Michael
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1
> and 1.7b2
>
> Is this via http? Given that export is slower I'd be willing to bet the
> performance difference is from the new http client library - serf. It is
&g
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Is this via http? Given that export is slower I'd be willing to bet the
> performance difference is from the new http client library - serf. It is
> typically slower than Neon. Try switching to neon and run it again.
>
I updated to the lat
Is this via http? Given that export is slower I'd be willing to bet the
performance difference is from the new http client library - serf. It is
typically slower than Neon. Try switching to neon and run it again.
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 9, 2011, at 4:13 AM, "Ketting, Michael"
wrote:
> H
> -Original Message-
> From: Ketting, Michael [mailto:michael.kett...@rubicon.eu]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 augustus 2011 10:14
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Significant checkout performance degradation between 1.6.1 and
> 1.7b2
>
> Hello!
>
&g
On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 08:13:49AM +, Ketting, Michael wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I've recently picked up the subversion 1.7 beta 2 build (included in the
> latest TortoiseSVN beta) and did a checkout of our solution (~10,000 files,
> ~2,000 folders, ~180MB).
> With Subversion 1.6.1, it takes rough
Hello!
I've recently picked up the subversion 1.7 beta 2 build (included in the latest
TortoiseSVN beta) and did a checkout of our solution (~10,000 files, ~2,000
folders, ~180MB).
With Subversion 1.6.1, it takes roughly 5 minutes, with Subversion 1.7 beta 2,
it takes about 10 minutes.
Is this
31 matches
Mail list logo
