On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> It seems to be a good thing to try to implement on Hackathon in Berlin.
>
> I'm often switching between different branches and I'll benefit a lot
> if this operation will just take one REPORT request, instead of many
> PROPFINDs for each added
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:41 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 06:21 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> It seems that ra_serf unconditionally retrieves properties using
>> PROPFIND for *all* added files:
>
> Yup, that's what I said. :-)
>
>> subversion\libsvn_ra_serf\update.c:1633 (start_report
On 05/10/2012 06:21 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> It seems that ra_serf unconditionally retrieves properties using
> PROPFIND for *all* added files:
Yup, that's what I said. :-)
> subversion\libsvn_ra_serf\update.c:1633 (start_report)
> [[[
> else if ((state == OPEN_DIR || state == ADD_DIR) &&
>
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:51 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 05:47 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:49 AM, C. Michael Pilato
>>> wrote:
On 05/08/2012 04:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 20
On 05/08/2012 05:47 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:49 AM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2012 04:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1
On 05/08/2012 05:47 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Well, it seems things are more complicated: current mod_dav_svn
> implementation never sends tag and ra_serf always asks
> for properties, even if there is no properties.
You know, I had a memory that this had changed at some point -- something
that pb
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:49 AM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> On 05/08/2012 04:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato
wrote:
> On
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:49 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 04:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato
>>> wrote:
On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> One question: the
On 05/08/2012 04:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
One question: the ordering of PROPFIND and GET. Do you know if that is
a requi
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> One question: the ordering of PROPFIND and GET. Do you know if that is
>>> a requirement, or simply that you were preserving prior beh
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 12:09 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> One question: the ordering of PROPFIND and GET. Do you know if that is
>> a requirement, or simply that you were preserving prior behavior?
>
> Upon reflection, it's probably not a hard require
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:09 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> One question: the ordering of PROPFIND and GET. Do you know if that is
>> a requirement, or simply that you were preserving prior behavior?
>
> Upon reflection, it's probably not a hard requirem
On 05/08/2012 03:35 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> One question: the ordering of PROPFIND and GET. Do you know if that is
> a requirement, or simply that you were preserving prior behavior?
Upon reflection, it's probably not a hard requirement. In general, I
suppose it's easier (and more efficient) to c
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 3:23 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 02:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> As I said before, I suspect your numbers would be much lower if I wasn't
>>> sending HEAD requests for each file. Unfortunately
On 05/08/2012 02:51 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> As I said before, I suspect your numbers would be much lower if I wasn't
>> sending HEAD requests for each file. Unfortunately, ra_serf is depending on
>> the ordering of the pipelined requests
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 05/08/2012 02:34 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> Now that I can run the test I wanted, the performance improvement is
>>> pretty nice. Checking out our code goes from 1m35s down to
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 02:34 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Now that I can run the test I wanted, the performance improvement is
>> pretty nice. Checking out our code goes from 1m35s down to 0m44s. I
>> cannot help but think that number should still
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 2:45 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 02:34 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> Now that I can run the test I wanted, the performance improvement is
>> pretty nice. Checking out our code goes from 1m35s down to 0m44s. I
>> cannot help but think that number should still
On 05/08/2012 02:34 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Now that I can run the test I wanted, the performance improvement is
> pretty nice. Checking out our code goes from 1m35s down to 0m44s. I
> cannot help but think that number should still be a lot lower though.
> This scenario seems like it would be
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 01:03 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> Mark, can you see if this (and previous commits I've made) fixes the file
>>> handle abuse problem you reported?
>>>
>>> I t
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM, wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_ops.c Tue May 8 16:56:42 2012
>...
> + SVN_ERR(svn_wc__db_pristine_check(&present, wc_ctx->db, wri_abspath,
> + sha1_checksum, scratch_pool));
> +
> + if (present)
>
On 05/08/2012 01:03 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> Mark, can you see if this (and previous commits I've made) fixes the file
>> handle abuse problem you reported?
>>
>> I tested this locally using "ulimit -n 200" to reduce the file handle
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 05/08/2012 12:56 PM, cmpil...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: cmpilato
>> Date: Tue May 8 16:56:42 2012
>> New Revision: 1335639
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1335639&view=rev
>> Log:
>> Avoid opening pristine store file ha
On 05/08/2012 12:56 PM, cmpil...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: cmpilato
> Date: Tue May 8 16:56:42 2012
> New Revision: 1335639
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1335639&view=rev
> Log:
> Avoid opening pristine store file handles until they are actually
> required.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_
24 matches
Mail list logo
